Quote from: Sacrosanct;682670not having fighters being able to replicate spells

But 4e hasn't got that either.

The new L&L is up and 4vengers are pitching a fit and accusing Mearls of fudging all the playtest feedback because he hates Christmas and kicks puppies.

Also this:

Quote from: MearlsI also believe that D&D had wandered away from what players are looking for from it.

It's like beautiful music to my ears.

Quote from: LibraryLass;682869But 4e hasn't got that either.

So, you haven't read it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682670Not really.  3e still had vancian magic.  3e still had mundane classes doing relatively mundane abilities not having fighters being able to replicate spells (a common point that 4e fans like to bring up when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells.)  3e did not have per-encounter or at wills.  It was still very much on the per day scale that all previous editions had.

In particular, I'd say the only truly radical additions that 3E made to the system - skills and feats - were quite plainly laid over the top of a rules system which was fairly true to previous editions. Yes, you had stuff like unified experience tables and ascended AC and the like, but most of that was mere tweaks which could equally well have been applied to previous editions without radically changing the game experience.

3E was an evolutionary, additive change, 4E was a revolutionary change which altered the very core of the system.

The daft thing is, I think there was definitely a scope for a game which took the new design approach that was reflected in some aspects of 3E but dissociated the new ideas from the D&D sacred cows - that's basically what True20 did, but they went in the direction of being more rules light and less grid-focused and 4E strikes me as being a decent stab at the same in a more rules-bound and grid-locked direction.

Quote from: Piestrio;682873It's like beautiful music to my ears.

Mearls has consistently talked the right talk as far as I'm concerned - I'm waiting on the final product to see whether he can walk the walk though.

Quote from: 1989;6823424e is bad. Really bad. Worst D&D ever. Complete failure. Publisher recanted it. That's how bad.

From now to the future, having liked, owned, and played 4e will mark any gamer as someone to avoid.

It will be the litmus test for potential recruits to game groups everywhere:

"What did you think of 4e?"

"I mostly liked it."

"Yeah, sorry, our gaming group is pretty full, right now. Check back at another time."

I wouldn't go that far. 4e may not be my game of choice either, but I won't disqualify someone just for liking the game. That's overkill, I think.

Quote from: Piestrio;682873The new L&L is up and 4vengers are pitching a fit and accusing Mearls of fudging all the playtest feedback because he hates Christmas and kicks puppies.

Also this:



It's like beautiful music to my ears.

What some people seem unable to comprehend is that maybe their tastes are in the minority as far as the playtest feedback goes.

Seems that 20 or 30 people who scream the loudest aren't representative of the hobby as a whole - who would've thought it?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;682923So, you haven't read it.

Okay, okay, they can take Ritual Casting same as anyone else, but that's clearly not what's being said here.

Quote from: LibraryLass;682946Okay, okay, they can take Ritual Casting same as anyone else, but that's clearly not what's being said here.

Actually it is.  That part where I said 4e fighters could replicate spells?  That was taken directly from TCO and Lokaire from the WoTC forums.  Specifically in the context that Next is screwing 4e playstyle because the Next fighter, even the gladiator who does have plenty of maneuvers and abilities, cannot "replicate the spells of a cleric or mage like the 4e fighter could."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682670having fighters being able to replicate spells (a common point that 4e fans like to bring up when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells.)

Quote from: LibraryLass;682869But 4e hasn't got that either.

That's really pretty disingenuous. 4E Fighters have abilities that are mechanically indistinguishable from those of Wizards. Their abilities are also impossible to explain, in game, through mundane means. Sure, they're not called "Spells," but what's the difference?

Quote from: LibraryLass;682946Okay, okay, they can take Ritual Casting same as anyone else, but that's clearly not what's being said here.

Outside of rituals there are powers such as come and get it, that operate like powerful magical effects but are labelled as being from a "martial power source" whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean.

Constructs, mindless undead, oozes, whatever are compelled by some force to race to the tanking fighter and engage in melee. There is no game world level satifactory explanation for this. It is a power that just works because the rules say so.

That is a mind controlling magical power so awesome that a mind isn't even required for it to work.

Quote from: 1989;6823424e is bad. Really bad. Worst D&D ever. Complete failure. Publisher recanted it. That's how bad.

From now to the future, having liked, owned, and played 4e will mark any gamer as someone to avoid.

It will be the litmus test for potential recruits to game groups everywhere:

"What did you think of 4e?"

"I mostly liked it."

"Yeah, sorry, our gaming group is pretty full, right now. Check back at another time."

LOL you realize the first edition to be used as such a litmus test by intolerant gamers was 2e, right?  That the common perception of 2e (which I disagree with btw) by most D&D players is that 2e was awful, and included it in the joke of "even numbered editions suck, like 2e and 4e, it's the opposite of the Star Trek movies"?

Yeah you probably do realize that, as a target of that derision for decades, as so you're probably trying to bully back at 4e fans in revenge for the bullying you got from 1e and 3e fans.  Have fun with that, I hope it provides the catharsis you seem to need!

Quote from: Mistwell;682969LOL you realize the first edition to be used as such a litmus test by intolerant gamers was 2e, right?  That the common perception of 2e (which I disagree with btw) by most D&D players is that 2e was awful, and included it in the joke of "even numbered editions suck, like 2e and 4e, it's the opposite of the Star Trek movies"?

Yeah you probably do realize that, as a target of that derision for decades, as so you're probably trying to bully back at 4e fans in revenge for the bullying you got from 1e and 3e fans.  Have fun with that, I hope it provides the catharsis you seem to need!

The derision for 2E is about the watered down approach TSR took the game at that time and the poor quality of a lot of supplements. The 2E system is almost indistinguishable from 1E.

Difference is:

- people still played 2e, though they complained about some things (demons/devils/assasins/gary is gone)

- people didn't play 4e. They left. In large numbers.

My reading of AD&D 2e was that it was considerably better organized than AD&D 1e and had better designed options for character customization. However my friends viewed it not being different enough to warrant switching from their AD&D 1e books so we never got off the ground with it.

I thought the wealth of different settings to be a good thing at the time.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;682939I wouldn't go that far. 4e may not be my game of choice either, but I won't disqualify someone just for liking the game. That's overkill, I think.

It's juvenile as hell. Who would even want to play with a group that would exclude someone based on some other unrelated game they happen to like?  Unreal.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682343It's just the 4vengers who you need to avoid.  The ones who declare 4e to be the best EVAR and anything else sucks.

In fact it sounds a lot like these guys.