Well, some senselessly convoluted stuff got higher-profile approval -- including paychecks from publishers -- back in the day. There's no such thing as objectively better unless we've agreed on our objective, but if our objective is to sell a lot to happy customers then some things have been learned to be less optimal than others.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776038That's simply the feel the rules gave. All character classes had the same basic structure. Everyone used powers, so spell casters didn't really feel that different from anyone else- the spells were more like just flavoring than anything else.

Your experiences vary greatly than mine. Despite the AEDU structure, I felt each class had different mechanics that led them to play very differently at the table. A Fighter simply didn't play or even have the same focus as a Paladin or Warden even though they were all defenders. Same with the Cleric and Warlord, both are leaders yet in how they approach both combat and OOC scenarios was very different.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776038The expressly defined combat roles were pretty much in line with City of Heroes with a few name changes.

I felt the combat roles were pretty much defined in every single edition of the game, but they just never labeled them until 4E. A Fighter or Paladin arch-type was pretty much a "tank", a Cleric was a "leader" (due to both role in the party and theme in the story), a Wizard's best qualities was controlling the battlefield and Rogues were always build with spike-damage capability. All 4E did was cater to these ever-present roles with tags and features that made them better at it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776038So 4E combined scrappers & blasters into strikers, defenders became leaders, controllers stayed the same, and tankers became defenders.

All this superhero mechanical support along with the explicit assumption that all PCs were BIG DAMN HEROES right out of the gate made 4E very much a supers genre game underneath the veneer of fantasy that went only costume and skin deep.

The whole BIG DAMN HEROES thing is pretty much a myth when looked at from the perspective of 4E. Kobolds, for example, are damn hard to beat at 1st level and the same is true with Orcs. It's when the characters are compared to previous edition classes that people have this perception that 4E characters are nigh invincible or "super heroic". Well yea, they're bigger because a 1st level Kobold in 4E has approx 24 HP and gets +6 to attack compared to the v3.5 Kobold which has 4 HP and a +1 to attack.

Further nothing about a 4E character, especially at lower levels, gives any indication that they have "superhuman" powers akin to Superheores in DC or Marvel. I've honestly been able to re-create MORE superhero-esque characters in v3.5 that emulate Marvel or DC heroes far better than 4E's structure.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;776159Now, one can argue that the game should or should not have changed to address different styles. But the fact is, the game has changed, and those of us who came in with Dragonlance, 2nd Edition, 3.X, 4E, or other things have a stake in it just as much as those of you who made the pilgrimage to the Spielomance in Lake Geneva, studied under the Sacred Order of Wargamers, and offered the still-beating heart of an Amateur Thespian or Charopper in sacrifice to the Great Demogygax in order to receive the right to peruse the Sacred Pages of the DMG.

All I did was send a check (or maybe it was a money order who can remember shit like that after 40 years) in the mail to TSR. No other sacrifice or pilgrimage required.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;776159From a certain point of view, it makes sense--if combat's the most dangerous and mechanically defined part of the game, it makes more sense to allow everyone tools to participate rather than trying to rotate spotlight balance in a play environment that's getting more and more diverse or unbalanced in terms of dedication to specific elements.

The problem is that it not only makes combat the foundation of the game, but it makes a certain approach to combat - toe-to-toe tactical mayhem - the foundation of the game. There's nothing wrong with that kind of play. But D&D has historically offered much, much more.


As for the game changing, yes it has. And that's okay. But it's a matter of degree. 15 years from now, there may be a market for a game of shapechanging insectoids battling in arenas. Should D&D become that game in order to appeal to a changing market? I'd say no. D&D is actually a thing - it isn't infinitely flexible, nor should it be. If there really is an appetite for a Universal Action Movie Emulator Tabletop RPG, someone should design and publish it. But D&D isn't it.

Quote from: Batman;776237I felt the combat roles were pretty much defined in every single edition of the game, but they just never labeled them until 4E. A Fighter or Paladin arch-type was pretty much a "tank", a Cleric was a "leader" (due to both role in the party and theme in the story), a Wizard's best qualities was controlling the battlefield and Rogues were always build with spike-damage capability. All 4E did was cater to these ever-present roles with tags and features that made them better at it.

It did a lot more than that - it pretty much shunted all non-combat roles and activity to the periphery. AD&D Thieves were not strikers; their job was to be the eyes, ears, and nimble fingers of the party in order to set up the optimal context for the combat to take place. Once the fighting starts, they may get a strike or two in, but they're very weak. But that's okay, because their job is largely done once combat kicks off. That job became irrelevant once D&D came to focus on fixed tactical encounters, and manipulating the context of combat with scouting, ambushing, diplomacy, etc. became irksome and not really in the spirit of the game.

And you could run an effective AD&D magic-user who didn't do a whole lot in combat, but used charm, illusion, rope trick, etc. to aid in non-combat and evasion situations. That's not possible in 4E.

4E is a fun game.  But in the interests of focus and balance it truncated D&D to a very, very narrow style of play.

Quote from: Haffrung;776285It did a lot more than that - it pretty much shunted all non-combat roles and activity to the periphery.

When I read this, I can only come to the conclusions that your play style and mine differ significantly, specifically when it comes to 4E and that you look for mechanics to facilitate non-combat activities instead of just telling the DM what you want to do and the DM setting up the things. I've had zero problems with 4E when trying to do stuff out of combat.

Quote from: Haffrung;776285AD&D Thieves were not strikers; their job was to be the eyes, ears, and nimble fingers of the party in order to set up the optimal context for the combat to take place. Once the fighting starts, they may get a strike or two in, but they're very weak. But that's okay, because their job is largely done once combat kicks off.

What's wrong with having both? If I'm playing a Thief and my job is to scout out the area ahead, find favorable terrain to launch an ambush, figure out who the strongest is among the enemy (and make sure the group targets that guy first) I can easily accomplish that with a 4E Rogue AND when it comes time for combat, I can contribute to the party there too. Nothing in 4E stops me from doing exactly what you suggested here.

Quote from: Haffrung;776285That job became irrelevant once D&D came to focus on fixed tactical encounters, and manipulating the context of combat with scouting, ambushing, diplomacy, etc. became irksome and not really in the spirit of the game.

That's a pretty vast departure from any 4E (or otherwise) game I've had the pleasure of running or playing in. Nothing about 4E discourages this and even has class features, spells, exploits, and prayers to enhance it. Not to mention things like Rituals too. Sorry but I think we're just coming from two very different experiences.

Quote from: Haffrung;776285And you could run an effective AD&D magic-user who didn't do a whole lot in combat, but used charm, illusion, rope trick, etc. to aid in non-combat and evasion situations. That's not possible in 4E.

Sure it is though I fully admit that it wasn't so right out of the gate. The 4E Wizard was more focused on battlefield control and blasting *shrugs*.

Quote from: Haffrung;7762854E is a fun game.  But in the interests of focus and balance it truncated D&D to a very, very narrow style of play.

There are those who've had that experience and there are those who haven't.  My style of play hasn't changed when I first started with AD&D 2nd Edition in 98' and it's been through 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, 4E and Essentials. The rules have changed but the style is still there.

Quote from: Batman;776237Further nothing about a 4E character, especially at lower levels, gives any indication that they have "superhuman" powers akin to Superheores in DC or Marvel. I've honestly been able to re-create MORE superhero-esque characters in v3.5 that emulate Marvel or DC heroes far better than 4E's structure.

So, to you, 1st level Druid with at-will wild shape, 1st level wizards who can continually shoot waves of thunder from their fingertips, 1st level clerics striking enemies wth a sacred flame and magically healing their allies at will, or any eladrin or tiefling at all don't strike you as examples of superhuman powers a la Marvel and DC?

I, uh, erm, ok.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;776414So, to you, 1st level Druid with at-will wild shape, 1st level wizards who can continually shoot waves of thunder from their fingertips, 1st level clerics striking enemies wth a sacred flame and magically healing their allies at will, or any eladrin or tiefling at all don't strike you as examples of superhuman powers a la Marvel and DC?

I, uh, erm, ok.

Asshole. Quit acting like you're actually 65 years old already given it's bullshit. And accept most Dnd players were born AFTER 1970ish fucktard.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;776414So, to you, 1st level Druid with at-will wild shape, 1st level wizards who can continually shoot waves of thunder from their fingertips, 1st level clerics striking enemies wth a sacred flame and magically healing their allies at will, or any eladrin or tiefling at all don't strike you as examples of superhuman powers a la Marvel and DC?

I, uh, erm, ok.

Since I know their effects are marginal at best, no I really don't.

Quote from: Batman;776436Since I know their effects are marginal at best, no I really don't.

Cool. Just goes to show you that you have to check your own perspective against others in the real world from time to time.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;776442Cool. Just goes to show you that you have to check your own perspective against others in the real world from time to time.

I hear ya and I'm not saying that 4e isn't a rapid departure from past editions but within the context of the game most PCs aren't that incredible until much later into the game.

Quote from: Batman;776436Since I know their effects are marginal at best, no I really don't.

I guess you never ran into said Druid outside an urban area? Marginal isn't what I'd call them. And that's without factoring in the majority of them aren't humans. And basically 4e wasn't any different about power level .It just had a higher baseline and a lower ceiling.

Was that a non sequiter Natty? I hope so you fuck.

Quote from: Batman;776461I hear ya and I'm not saying that 4e isn't a rapid departure from past editions but within the context of the game most PCs aren't that incredible until much later into the game.

I think I get what you were saying up thread. If 1st level 4e characters do have superhuman powers ( and in my estimation the do, but opinions vary ) then at least kobolds are monsters up to challenging them, so it's not Superman against a bunch of mooks.  Is that a fair take on it?

For what it's worth I played about 2 years of 4e pretty heavily, both home games and LFR. Home games are always good. Despite playing LFR with a few great folks I've seen every criticism leveled against 4e in spades in LFR play. But who knows, that just might mostly be endemic to OP.