Pros and Cons of every D&D edition?

[Selene Sparks]

This is not factually correct, because it's a matter of opinion. Imo, 4e is the best out of 3.X, 4e, and 5e (the d20 systems I have experience with. From my (admittedly limited and second hand) knowledge of older editions, they sounded absolutely terrible.

I'm sorry, but it kind of objectively is. By every objective metric, 4e failed spectacularly. The hobby shrunk dramatically from the wild success of 3.X, they fired the head of D&D every year of the product, and the math was an objective failure on pretty much every level. I mean, Pathfinder, a mediocre modification of the previous edition that, at least at the beginning, just made the core problems worse, was regularly outperforming 4e. These are hard facts that tell you that the product was a bad product. I concede that success as a product isn't always a perfect indicator of the quality of the game(see OWoD, although considering its age, the LARP elements, and the fact that people primarily cared about the setting and premise, it's not a fair comparison), but in those objective metrics, and any other objective measure I can think of, 4e failed.

Beyond that, math fix feats were pretty were and remain one of the worst game design decisions imaginable. The reduction of monsters was a massive step backwards in game design. 4e, in addition to the monetary aspects, regularly made awful design decisions. I honestly have trouble coming up with things 4e did right. I have some notable respect for the early stage of the game, and the writers of Orcus(the 4e prototype), because they were trying new things, but the fact that their experiments were failures is, I don't think, a debatable point, and the fact that they let the terrible system with fundamentally bad math get out as a finished product is inexcusable.

You can have fun with a bad system, and if you do, more power to you, but that doesn't change the quality of the system.

4e has significantly better functional class diversity and options than 3.X, and I've never had more fun with a skill system than in 4e.

Again, no it doesn't. Every class is simply the same. 2[W]+whatever and a fiddly effect with an irregular duration that makes bookkeeping a pain on literally every class's powers isn't diversity. In fact, if you look at some of the design notes during the Orcus phase(that is, when designing the prototypes), they initially had a bunch of different systems for different classes, which were all cut, and some of which were later turned into ToB, one of the best-received books in 3.5. But, again, the designers threw that out to deliberately put everyone on the same power schedule and pattern; that's the opposite of diversity.

And, again, the skill system is objectively mathematically bad. Here's a nice analysis of the fundamental problems with the skill system.

If you enjoy it, I wish you the best in using it, because having fun is the most important part of an RPG, but the skill system is objectively bad and failed on literally every promise put forward.

I'm just saying it exists, but I'd agree that they were extremely lackluster. And yes, 3.5 does have enough content for you to not need to make your own, but it's always an option.

Not really. As loathe as I am to support Pathfinder on general principles, look at how they handled the racial construction system. That's what an actual system looks like. The 3.5 DMG's section on creating classes lacks any rules at all. And I'm being literal here, there isn't anything specific. There's a handful of shoulds and cans, but nothing that even resembles actual rules.

That's a fair point. Specifically, it gave exactly what a vocal minority of forum users was demanding, and it turned out that wasn't at all what the community as a whole really wanted.

Except it didn't. I genuinely cannot think of a single promise that the 4e designers put forward that they delivered on when it came to the mechanics. And, again, the 4e preorder numbers were insane. People clearly wanted what they were promising, just not what they delivered.

[Mordaedil]

Not really. As loathe as I am to support Pathfinder on general principles, look at how they handled the racial construction system. That's what an actual system looks like. The 3.5 DMG's section on creating classes lacks any rules at all. And I'm being literal here, there isn't anything specific. There's a handful of shoulds and cans, but nothing that even resembles actual rules.

That's true, it just lists how it'd make a theoretic new class it dubs the Witch, but no real guidelines otherwise.

But my point was that it was there, something that lacks from non-3rd or Pathfinder editions.

[Quertus]

4e has significantly better functional class diversity and options than 3.X, and I've never had more fun with a skill system than in 4e.

Now, I will give 3.5 one thing: it has, by far, the most advanced character building minigame I've ever seen. The sheer variety of insane stupid things you can do with it is amazing. It's the RPG equivalent of those people who make working 16-bit computers in minecraft. And while I respect the hell out of it and find it incredibly cool, imo, it make the system terrible to actually PLAY

Ok, this is so far from my experience, I gotta ask how you came to these conclusions.

I see 4e as having the least functional diversity of any D&D system ever written. I mean, Heck, I could write 6e as having only make and female character, and it would have more diversity, so long as make and female meant something different in the game world. 3e had too much diversity in capabilities and power level for some people to handle (particularly people in groups who don't know how to balance to the group). So how on earth do you perceive 4e as having the most diversity?

I find 2e the most fun to play, and 4e the least. But fun is utterly subjective. So, what made 4e fun?

And why do you consider having the capability to build whatever you want to play something that makes a system terrible to actually play? I kinda think the opposite, personally...

That's true, it just lists how it'd make a theoretic new class it dubs the Witch, but no real guidelines otherwise.

But my point was that it was there, something that lacks from non-3rd or Pathfinder editions.

2e had a section on creating new classes, complete with tables of costs. And it had Skills and Powers.

[Vhaidara]

Ok, this is so far from my experience, I gotta ask how you came to these conclusions.

I see 4e as having the least functional diversity of any D&D system ever written. I mean, Heck, I could write 6e as having only make and female character, and it would have more diversity, so long as make and female meant something different in the game world. 3e had to much diversity in capabilities and power level for some people to handle (especially people in groups who don't know how to balance to the group). So how on earth do you perceive 4e as having the most diversity?

I find 2e the most fun to play, and 4e the least. But fun is utterly subjective. So, what made 4e fun?

And why do you consider having the capability to build whatever you want to play something that makes a system terrible to actually play? I kinda think the opposite, personally...

The problem with 3.5 is that while it has a billion options, 90% of them are incompatible with each other due to a massive power gap that is present, ranging from "who the hell thought that was okay?" to "this is actively making my character worse"

4e does a much better job of narrowing the range so that people can play together. I can still build these weird janky things and they'll be able to keep up. They won't be optimal, but they won't be completely outshined (one example is a friend's build that gets to chuck a glaive in someone's face and walk away to stab someone else with the glaive every time an enemy moves adjacent to him).

And beyond that, 4e's consistent math makes running it and writing enemies a joy. The level based monster scaling is a system that actually works, as opposed to 3.x's CR system which straight up flops on its face.

The reason it's a problem from 3.5 is that it makes at table power level variety a massive problem, and more to the point it makes it easy for those problems to arise by accident. A druid who just goes for "I'm a bear, riding a bear, summoning bears" will probably end up showing up the fighter who invests all his feats into being the very best with a greatsword.

Additionally, I find 4e's power system FAR more palatable than "I full attack" or "I cast the Win spell"

[Kurald Galain]

The problem with 3.5 is that while it has a billion options, 90% of them are incompatible with each other due to a massive power gap that is present, ranging from "who the hell thought that was okay?" to "this is actively making my character worse"

So your point is not actually "4E is more diverse", but "4E is less diverse and I prefer that".

And beyond that, 4e's consistent math makes running it and writing enemies a joy. The level based monster scaling is a system that actually works, as opposed to 3.x's CR system which straight up flops on its face.

You're aware of Needlefang Drake Swarms, yes? (i.e. an example of a creature that is so wrongly CR'ed in 4E that using it as written tends to cause TPKs).

[Anonymouswizard]

4e has a different type of diversity to earlier editions and 5e.

There's little differentiation in terms of what resources you get, and damage is pretty constant between the different classes in the roles. So yes, there's a lack of diversity in that respect (although it means that in theory the maths works), but it means that in theory we can allow the secondary features to pick up the slack.

4e begins by narrowing down the first set of classes to the Heroic Fantasy genre it wants. Which means the Bard and the Sorcerer are out, because Warlords and Warlocks fit better. It then tries to make certain each role feels and plays differently, and then as a third concern wants each class to feel different.

Whether that works will depend on who you are, I think 4e did a good job with getting classes to feel different, and only got better as it went along (I prefer the Runepriest to the Cleric because I feel like it had a tighter design that knew what was special about it, and wasn't split between maces and lasers). Like 3.X 4e was at it's worst when it first came out, with classes not really getting unique play options in the Player's Handbook but instead flavouring their role differently. When the PhB2 came out we got classes that could switch between two 'forms' which had access to different powers, that had companion spirits, and so on. the PhB3 gave us classes which used Power Points instead of Encounter Powers, and a couple of classes only I care about.

4e did branch out at the end, with Essentials (which I am actually interested in even though I no longer own 4e), which tried to make everything simpler.

But 4e would probably have worked better if instead of pick your class you picked a Power Source, a Role, and possibly a Secondary Role or power source, and selected your powers based on that. So you might have a Martial Defender (who can select from the Martial Defender set of powers), an Arcane/Primal Leader (who can select Arcane Leader powers and Primal Leader powers), and a Divine Controller/Striker (who can select Divine Controller powers and Divine Striker powers). Give each combination an ability open to those who picked it as their Power Source and Role (but not their secondary), but turn things like Channel Divinity into Feats. Lots more diversity there if you pull it off.

[Quertus]

But 4e would probably have worked better if instead of pick your class you picked a Power Source, a Role, and possibly a Secondary Role or power source, and selected your powers based on that. So you might have a Martial Defender (who can select from the Martial Defender set of powers), an Arcane/Primal Leader (who can select Arcane Leader powers and Primal Leader powers), and a Divine Controller/Striker (who can select Divine Controller powers and Divine Striker powers). Give each combination an ability open to those who picked it as their Power Source and Role (but not their secondary), but turn things like Channel Divinity into Feats. Lots more diversity there if you pull it off.

Clearly, one person's "pro" is another's "con".

In that vein, would anyone object to, say, D&D 6e having this level of modular character design, where you select power source and role(s)?

And, perhaps independent of that, do the same for out-of-combat role(s)?

[Kurald Galain]

4E classes within a role do play differently...

...but they're differences like how fighters mark creatures they attack, paladins mark as a swift action, and wardens mark adjacent creatures. Or how rangers, rogues, and warlocks each deal their striker bonus damage in a slightly different fashion.

I mean, it undeniably is different and has a clear impact on tactics, but I can easily understand that some people don't find it different enough, or that they find that it doesn't impact roleplaying.

[Delta]

I mean, it undeniably is different and has a clear impact on tactics, but I can easily understand that some people don't find it different enough, or that they find that it doesn't impact roleplaying.

Oh, absolutely. I'd never say that 4e is a good game for every one. Matter of fact, in my opinion it's only a good game for exactly one type of play, but as far as smashing through combat encounters and gathering mountains of loot goes, for me it hits the right sweet spot between being so structured it makes running and playing it really easy yet still giving you enough crunchy options to make it fun.

[Ratter]

I would recommend Fantasy AGE,

Ive played fantasy AGE before, and you have I think it was 3 classes? (idk) this seems kind of wierd to me

[Nifft]

4E classes within a role do play differently...

...but they're differences like how fighters mark creatures they attack, paladins mark as a swift action, and wardens mark adjacent creatures. Or how rangers, rogues, and warlocks each deal their striker bonus damage in a slightly different fashion.

I mean, it undeniably is different and has a clear impact on tactics, but I can easily understand that some people don't find it different enough, or that they find that it doesn't impact roleplaying.

The biggest issue with 4e discussions is that the 4e PHB reads like a VCR manual.

In actual play, the classes are distinct, and each one feels unique given how you can interact with the battlefield (including mobility, forcing opponent movement, or exerting zones of control).

In actual play, there's a striking diversity of styles.

But if you've never played the game -- and there's a sizable forum population who don't play any edition -- if you've never played the game, then all you have to go on is the presentation in the books (which is clear, but not evocative).

So, that's what you'll be hearing. An impression based on looking at the presentation, not playing the game.

4e wasn't exciting to read. But it could be fun to play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

4e wasn't exciting to read. But it could be fun to play.

This is my experience as well. I only had limited play time and everyone was new, but classes didn't feel the same. At the core they're similar (using the same frameworks), but in play they feel different. And the books (especially the PHB) do a crappy job of showing that difference.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ive played fantasy AGE before, and you have I think it was 3 classes? (idk) this seems kind of wierd to me

Yeah, 3 classes. Warrior, Rogue, and Mage. The idea being that whatever concept you have probably boils down to one of those three with Talents added. I tend to like a small number of broad archetypes over specific ones (or 5e's weird mix of broad and narrow), I'm a firm supporter of 'my class is elf'. Remember that in Fantasy AGE Paladin would be a specialisation, which you get two (one you pick up between level 4 and level 10, the other between about level 12 and level 18).

If you think that's kind of weird, wait until you get to point buy games. No classes, just a stack of points and things to spend them on. They can work really well, being a lot more flexible than even the broadest classes, but can easily cause wild imbalances based on what's been picked. A high combat game where only one character has a greater than 25% chance to hit somebody? I've seen it. A party including a nun, a ninja, a private investigator, and a reformed diabloist? I've seen it. An old woman, a nurse, a magic-using priest, and a LARPer? The only reason I haven't seen it is because the GM banned my priest character.

[2D8HP]

Ive played fantasy AGE before, and you have I think it was 3 classes? (idk) this seems kind of wierd to me

Oh the OP!

Welcome back!

History time!

The 1974 Dungeons & Dragons rules had three classes:

"Fighting-Men includes the characters of elves and dwarves and even hobbits.

Magic-Users includes only men and elves.

Clerics are limited to men only. All non-human players are restricted in some aspects and gifted in others"

Sadly, while the smell of a few made me wonder, I never actually saw any "non-human players unless a cat moving a d20 across the floor counts.

Now despite my STUNNING HUMILITY I have my own suggestions for just three classes:

1) PC's like Fafhrd from the stories of Fritz Leiber, which would have elements of Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and Thief

2) PC's like The Grey Mouser from the stories of Fritz Leiber, which would have elements of Fighter, Sorcerer, Thief, and Wizard

3) Freak show PC's of whatever kind that will entice other players besides me to the table despite their lacking my absolutly objective correctness, good looks, stunning humility, and my total absence of commiting the vile act of sarcasm and bluetext which I never use EVER!!!

...4e wasn't exciting to read. But it could be fun to play.

Good to know.

Thanks!

[Ratter]

Yeah, 3 classes. Warrior, Rogue, and Mage. The idea being that whatever concept you have probably boils down to one of those three with Talents added. I tend to like a small number of broad archetypes over specific ones (or 5e's weird mix of broad and narrow), I'm a firm supporter of 'my class is elf'. Remember that in Fantasy AGE Paladin would be a specialisation, which you get two (one you pick up between level 4 and level 10, the other between about level 12 and level 18).

Now I just have to find an online group that runs this ...

[Selene Sparks]

That's true, it just lists how it'd make a theoretic new class it dubs the Witch, but no real guidelines otherwise.

But my point was that it was there, something that lacks from non-3rd or Pathfinder editions.

I see what you're saying now. I simply disagree with your definition of something being there, so I think agreeing to disagree over this is probably for the best.

That said, 2e actually did have class creation rules. They were pretty bonkers, but they were there.

The problem with 3.5 is that while it has a billion options, 90% of them are incompatible with each other due to a massive power gap that is present, ranging from "who the hell thought that was okay?" to "this is actively making my character worse"

And 4e makes everyone who's not the exact same functional role, and preferably same class, as everyone else an actual liability in combat, because they're not engaging in their share of kiting/soaking/paladin shenanigansing.

And beyond that, 4e's consistent math makes running it and writing enemies a joy. The level based monster scaling is a system that actually works, as opposed to 3.x's CR system which straight up flops on its face.

Except, no. The math in 4e is bad on every level, including in combat. At least in 3.X, discarding dragons and a handful of ludicrous things like Ephemeral Swarms or Adamantine Horrors, the CR function was useful.

The reason it's a problem from 3.5 is that it makes at table power level variety a massive problem, and more to the point it makes it easy for those problems to arise by accident. A druid who just goes for "I'm a bear, riding a bear, summoning bears" will probably end up showing up the fighter who invests all his feats into being the very best with a greatsword.

Except that a druid also has the option of going hard BFC, probably being more useful overall than the bears and letting the fighter with the greatsword shine. This isn't an option in 4e if someone else picked one of the bad classes and someone else picked up a good class, because the bottom line is the classes all do basically the same thing.

Additionally, I find 4e's power system FAR more palatable than "I full attack" or "I cast the Win spell"

I, again, disagree, because the power system is even less dynamic than the full attack or win spell system, and that's without getting into the massive diversity of other power systems within 3.X.

I've genuinely had, in a game I was playing in, a player who had to leave at the start of a boss fight write down the actions they expected to take for the combat. And you know what? It worked. Because 4e combat is predictable padded sumo in the majority of cases, and every combat follows the exact same pattern of popping encounters then at wills unless its a boss fight. 3.5, between all the subsystems, the length of combat, and so on, has never had this happen in any game I've been in.

But 4e would probably have worked better if instead of pick your class you picked a Power Source, a Role, and possibly a Secondary Role or power source, and selected your powers based on that. So you might have a Martial Defender (who can select from the Martial Defender set of powers), an Arcane/Primal Leader (who can select Arcane Leader powers and Primal Leader powers), and a Divine Controller/Striker (who can select Divine Controller powers and Divine Striker powers). Give each combination an ability open to those who picked it as their Power Source and Role (but not their secondary), but turn things like Channel Divinity into Feats. Lots more diversity there if you pull it off.

That doesn't solve the underlying problems of the system, though, unless you thoroughly revise the power system as a whole, as well as alter what math there is underlying the game.

In that vein, would anyone object to, say, D&D 6e having this level of modular character design, where you select power source and role(s)?

And, perhaps independent of that, do the same for out-of-combat role(s)?

Power sources would probably be fine, so long as you actually differentiated them, but the roles thing was a bad idea. "Roles" shouldn't be a thing at all, and you should instead have "responsibilities." That is, instead of having party damage mitigation handled by classes labeled "tank" who are all high-defense and high-HP, you have the responsibility of damage mitigation, which can be handled in numerous ways(CC, debuffs, etc) so you don't have the players pidgeonholed into something they don't want to be because the raidgroup needs a tank and we don't have one.

4E classes within a role do play differently...

...but they're differences like how fighters mark creatures they attack, paladins mark as a swift action, and wardens mark adjacent creatures. Or how rangers, rogues, and warlocks each deal their striker bonus damage in a slightly different fashion.

I mean, it undeniably is different and has a clear impact on tactics, but I can easily understand that some people don't find it different enough, or that they find that it doesn't impact roleplaying.

The problem is, again, that this is only true in the worst possible way.

The game actively incentivizes the whole party doubling down on whatever role they decided on, that is everyone should be ranged DPS, or melee DPS, or all paladins, or what have you.

The biggest issue with 4e discussions is that the 4e PHB reads like a VCR manual.

In actual play, the classes are distinct, and each one feels unique given how you can interact with the battlefield (including mobility, forcing opponent movement, or exerting zones of control).

In actual play, there's a striking diversity of styles.

In actual play, this really isn't the case. "Oh, hey, I get a slightly different mediocre rider on my encounter power" isn't diversity, and the game actively discourages diversity within the party.

[Florian]

@Selene:

Shut up and write your own system already.

[Anonymouswizard]

That doesn't solve the underlying problems of the system, though, unless you thoroughly revise the power system as a whole, as well as alter what math there is underlying the game.

I was focused on one problem, but you know what? I'm going to take that as a challenge.

I'm going to see if I can write a system that takes the AEDU power system, goes for a more free form style of character building. At the same time I'm going to see if they can fix the other problems. My goals are within the spoiler.

Spoiler

Show

1. Balance across all four roles over ten levels.
2. Each role feels unique, and feels like it contributes.
3. At least one competitive build that deals no damage.
4. Science Fantasy genre, and all powers must work with both melee and ranged weapons.
5. Monsters that make for fun encounters.

Not in the list is any ability to use an alternative resource system. Because that's not a problem, it's a design choice. I know it's not one that you like, but it's a valid choice. The challenge here is to make a game which uses the AEDU system, has characters that feel different, and so on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Because that's not a problem, it's a design choice. I know it's not one that you like, but it's a valid choice.

And that quote sums up this entire thread (and all the similar ones on this forum) for me. It's so easy to mistake "I don't like that choice" with "anyone who makes that choice is incompetent" or "that's bad."

[Nifft]

In actual play, this really isn't the case.

I've got three years of experience both running and playing 4e that says it really is the case, the classes really do play differently when dice hit the table in earnest.

Do you have any actual experience with 4e?

Or is this just an uninformed opinion?

[Delta]

In actual play, this really isn't the case.

Um, yes it is. You may not like the way 4e classes are made up and I fully understand that, but to say they all play the same is just factually wrong.

[kyoryu]

That's a fair point. Specifically, it gave exactly what a vocal minority of forum users was demanding, and it turned out that wasn't at all what the community as a whole really wanted.

More importantly, it de-emphasized a lot of things that 3.x players really enjoyed. In doing so, it alienated a good number of D&D 3.x players.

There's also the fact that it's in the "D&D Uncanny Valley", in that there were a lot of things that, initially, looked like traditional D&D things but really weren't, or places where they took terms from previous editions and applied them to utterly different things. It just shattered a lot of expectations, and that's usually not a great thing.

I don't think D&D 4e was a bad game. I really don't. I do think that its design was almost guaranteed to alienate a large chunk of the D&D 3.x fanbase.

(disclaimer: I actually prefer 4e to 3.x. The things that 3.x does well aren't things I actually want from D&D).

[Rhedyn]

I know our group is thrilled to be running 4e for the first time rather than giving 5e another chance to disappoint us.

The problem with 3.x is that it is hard to GM. Pathfinder is arguably harder than 3.5 in some respects because the builds are more fiddly to understand as a GM. Where as in 3.5 if you list off the classes you took, then I have a rough idea what you can do. Oh sure there are worse 3.5 builds, but you actually have to try to make them complicated rather than the default "talent" structure of PF.

[Quertus]

I know our group is thrilled to be running 4e for the first time rather than giving 5e another chance to disappoint us.

The problem with 3.x is that it is hard to GM. Pathfinder is arguably harder than 3.5 in some respects because the builds are more fiddly to understand as a GM. Where as in 3.5 if you list off the classes you took, then I have a rough idea what you can do. Oh sure there are worse 3.5 builds, but you actually have to try to make them complicated rather than the default "talent" structure of PF.

This assumes a play style where the GM knows or cares about the PC's capabilities. As GM, I personally couldn't care less what you can do, so long as a) you are balanced to the party, and b) the party is balanced to the module.

That having been said, I thoroughly agree that 3e is still the hardest to GM of the D&D editions that I'm familiar with.

[Mechalich]

With regard to the edition wars, 4e specifically has the problem that many of the design choices made fell outside the 'D&D' conceptual space that a huge portion of the playerbase possessed.

When you're making a game you only get to define 'what this game is' one time. The ideas will carry forward into new editions. So choices made in a new iteration of the same game will be evaluated both on their merits and on their relationship to what people feel the game actually is.

What is D&D? This question was largely answered during the later 1e and early 2e eras when the game became popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s when TTRPGs were going big and TSR was able to sustain multiple best-selling novel lines. When 3e came along it largely claimed to be roughly the same game as the editions that had preceded it and kept a lot of the same labels, even down to obscure things like the names of the planes and the lore behind some truly weird monsters. 3e actually played very differently from 2e or 1e, especially once people dug into it a lot but this took some awareness and many of the early examples or play and scenarios make it clear that even the designers hadn't figured out how this was supposed to work. So there was the appearance of continuity if not the reality of it.

4e, by contrast, was obviously vastly different from the moment the first promotional materials hit. 4e actually does slay a bunch of D&D sacred cows, for better or worse, but many fans were attached to various of those sacred cows. I was a part of the Planescape community at the time, and that group revolted outright, because 4e murdered Planescape. Nobody in that group was even the slightest bit interested in evaluating 4e on the merits, they cared only about the manifest fact that it was impossible to use the system to run Planescape.

This is hardly a unique phenomenon. White-Wolf managed to do almost the exact same thing going from oWoD to nWoD at more or less the same time.

[2D8HP]

....What is D&D? This question was largely answered during the later 1e and early 2e eras when the game became popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s when TTRPGs were going big and TSR was able to sustain multiple best-selling novel lines. When 3e came along it largely claimed to be roughly the same game as the editions that had preceded it and kept a lot of the same labels, even down to obscure things like the names of the planes and the lore behind some truly weird monsters. 3e actually played very differently from 2e or 1e, especially once people dug into it a lot but this took some awareness and many of the early examples or play and scenarios make it clear that even the designers hadn't figured out how this was supposed to work. So there was the appearance of continuity if not the reality of it....

Now that is an extremely interesting insight to me.

I first DM'd D&D in 1978, and then in '79 played at a table with guys who started play in '75, and I continued with that gaming circle till about '86, with a few reunions until '89, but less D&D and more other games from '83 on, with my walking completely away from any new D&D rules upon the release of 1985's Unearthed Arcana (which I really didn't like, though I wish I had a copy now!), until recently starting D&D again with 5e.

Often folks in this Forum (and other sites), will make statements about "D&D has always....", "D&D historically..", "traditional D&D is..." that have just not rung true to me, and I'll dig out my '74 to 79' rules, go Nuh-uh!, and quote from my old books, and dim memories about what to me "Is D&D", but if I read you right @Mechalich, my D&D is "pre-history" and doesn't matter, because "What is D&D" formed after I stopped playing it, effectively making the old D&D I knew, non-existent, not unlike a scholar of pre-Columbian civilisation talking American history with someone for whom "American History" begins in 1776.

For example, in the early rules, besides Hobbits, Balrogs, and Ents they were some bits of rules for the Mars of Burroughs John Carter novels, and John Carter as well as Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are listed as what D&D emulates, but there was no mention of Drizzt, Elminster, The Harpers, or indeed anything about the "Forgotten Realms", and an argument may be made over which is "traditional D&D" (hint: I'm not fond of Faerun)

Oh well,

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra"

and

"Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel"

I miss a common language

[Kurald Galain]

There's also the fact that it's in the "D&D Uncanny Valley", in that there were a lot of things that, initially, looked like traditional D&D things but really weren't, or places where they took terms from previous editions and applied them to utterly different things. It just shattered a lot of expectations, and that's usually not a great thing.

Precisely.

And not just expectations from earlier editions, either. Fluff builds a lot of expectations, and 4E just has too many places where the description suggests that a power or feat does one thing, and if you actually read the rules it doesn't do that. Like for example, a death spell that is described as instantly killing enemies, but that actually just deals more-or-less the same damage as any other spell of that level.

(now I do NOT mean that the game must have save-or-die spells, but if you describe a spell as save-or-die then it had better actually kill stuff; if it doesn't, then the description needs to change)

Or like the druid that can turn into any animal he wants, but none of the forms make any mechanical difference: if you turn into a bird, you can't fly; if you turn into a fish, you can't swim. It would have been more consistent to rule that the druid can turn into (e.g.) any land-based mammal that he wants, and have bird/fish/whatnot be feats or something. Point is, with rules that state you can technically do X but it will not really act like X or have any impact, then you're going to end up with frustrated players.

Um, yes it is. You may not like the way 4e classes are made up and I fully understand that, but to say they all play the same is just factually wrong.

4E classes within a role do play differently...

...but they're differences like how fighters mark creatures they attack, paladins mark as a swift action, and wardens mark adjacent creatures. Or how rangers, rogues, and warlocks each deal their striker bonus damage in a slightly different fashion.

I mean, it undeniably is different and has a clear impact on tactics, but I can easily understand that some people don't find it different enough, or that they find that it doesn't impact roleplaying.

[Mechalich]

Often folks in this Forum (and other sites), will make statements about "D&D has always....", "D&D historically..", "traditional D&D is..." that have just not rung true to me, and I'll dig out my '74 to 79' rules, go Nuh-uh!, and quote from my old books, and dim memories about what to me "Is D&D", but if I read you right @Mechalich, my D&D is "pre-history" and doesn't matter, because "What is D&D" formed after I stopped playing it, effectively making the old D&D I knew, non-existent, not unlike a scholar of pre-Columbian civilisation talking American history with someone for whom "American History" begins in 1776.

It's not that early D&D 'doesn't matter' it's just that it had no real presence in the popular consciousness. D&D exploded into mass popularity in the mid-1980s, when TSR was the largest publisher of fantasy and science fiction in the United States (every fan of modern fantasy's prominence owes a debt to the Dragonlance Chronicles) and the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon was on the air. So the image the public and the majority of the playerbase gained of 'D&D' was of the material that was popular at that time, which was late 1e AD&D and later 2e AD&D. This was after Gygax and many of the original team members had been fired and the game had moved in a significantly different direction from its founding.

In many ways talking about the 1970s history of D&D is like talking about a band before they get on a record label and release a charting single. It's interesting historical information, but it does little to shape the image of the band in the popular consciousness.

[Knaight]

Precisely.

And not just expectations from earlier editions, either. Fluff builds a lot of expectations, and 4E just has too many places where the description suggests that a power or feat does one thing, and if you actually read the rules it doesn't do that. Like for example, a death spell that is described as instantly killing enemies, but that actually just deals more-or-less the same damage as any other spell of that level.

(now I mean that the game must have save-or-die spells, but if you describe a spell as save-or-die then it had better actually kill stuff; if it doesn't, then the description needs to change)

Or like the druid that can turn into any animal he wants, but none of the forms make any mechanical difference: if you turn into a bird, you can't fly; if you turn into a fish, you can't swim. It would have been more consistent to rule that the druid can turn into (e.g.) any land-based mammal that he wants, and have bird/fish/whatnot be feats or something. Point is, with rules that state you can technically do X but it will not really act like X or have any impact, then you're going to end up with frustrated players.

There's a term I like to use for this sort of thing - qualitative mechanics, here defined as any mechanic that acts primarily upon the setting fiction. Wildshape usually fits this, as it turns someone into an animal, and thus grants them the in fiction abilities of said animal, though this applies less to editions which tried to exhaustively define animals so there was always a statblock. Outside of D&D this sort of thing is ubiquitous, but D&D has tended to be low on it in general.

Even by D&D standards though, 4e was built in such a way that it pretty thoroughly avoided these, which came across particularly strong in terms of how the magic system was defined. Other editions of fireball usually come across as "there's a ball of fire, it light things and melts things and generally acts like fire, and also game mechanically it does damage" where in 4e it was very much "[x] damage in area".

I also suspect this is part of where the 4e as videogame accusations came from, particularly the ones based more in general feel than in specific argumentation. Videogames are pretty bad at qualitative mechanics, and in 2008 they were significantly worse, without much in the way of systemic games that made more use of them. This general intuition was then mapped onto game mechanics where there was more of an existing vocabulary to describe them, even if they didn't fit that well.

[Selene Sparks]

I was focused on one problem, but you know what? I'm going to take that as a challenge.

I'm going to see if I can write a system that takes the AEDU power system, goes for a more free form style of character building. At the same time I'm going to see if they can fix the other problems. My goals are within the spoiler.

Spoiler

Show

1. Balance across all four roles over ten levels.
2. Each role feels unique, and feels like it contributes.
3. At least one competitive build that deals no damage.
4. Science Fantasy genre, and all powers must work with both melee and ranged weapons.
5. Monsters that make for fun encounters.

Good luck! Please share your results on the forum if you do, I'd love to see something that accomplishes these goals actually done.

Not in the list is any ability to use an alternative resource system. Because that's not a problem, it's a design choice. I know it's not one that you like, but it's a valid choice. The challenge here is to make a game which uses the AEDU system, has characters that feel different, and so on.

It's a design choice, yes, and it's not an innately awful choice on a raw numbers perspective. Honestly, my only real objection is when people claim diversity of classes and abilities when they only have one system and everyone functions on it the same way. But if you actually manage above, while likely not something I'd enjoy overly much, it, itself, wouldn't necessarily be an awful system.

I've got three years of experience both running and playing 4e that says it really is the case, the classes really do play differently when dice hit the table in earnest.

Do you have any actual experience with 4e?

Or is this just an uninformed opinion?

Over a year of it being the only RPG available where I was, so yes, I do have experience.

Um, yes it is. You may not like the way 4e classes are made up and I fully understand that, but to say they all play the same is just factually wrong.

They don't all play the same exactly. After all, some parties are ranged DPS, some parties are melee DPS, and some parties are about grinding. That, however, is not "a striking diversity of styles."