4E D&D 'controversy' from Mike Mearls interview

[clockworkjoe]

http://lpjd.blogspot.com/2010/09/with-mike-mearls-admitting-that-4e.html

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_271/8109-Red-Box-Renaissance

"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all of our fans and replace them.' That was never the intent," Mearls said. "With 4th Edition, there were good intentions. We are D&D fans. We want D&D to be the best roleplaying game it can be. We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say."


4E isn't as popular as 3E was at its height. To the pathfinder fans, this means 4E is a failure and evil. 4E is far from perfect, but it is a huge improvement over 3E.

To say that 4E failed because of martial daily powers and marking is stupid. It's no less contrived than spells per day or the huge power imbalance between 3E classes.

[Flawless P]

I am not particulary in love with 4E but then again I have never gotten to play an actual game. 3.5 was my first DnD so I will admit to being a bit biased, but even then I now love Pathfinder. It kept the things I like and removed alot of things I didn't. Still I would like to play one game of 4E before I condem it to the Nine Hells but my gaming group all refuse to play it again after a game they got into at their college.

Your AP's make it sound fun though.

[Dogfish]

In the edition war I prefer 3.5/pathfinder. There are plenty of petty rules reasons and tons of personal opinion but the real decider for me, right from the start, was the sense of variety and the uniqueness that came with it. 4.7 has variety sure but I just never felt the classes were unique enough, though many people in response will quickly attack the unbalance in 3rd edition I never felt that balance was too huge a factor in a roleplaying game when in general the power creep is often an intentional player choice and happens quite mid-to-late game. My comparison is often MaOCT in which you can have a very unbalanced monster by total accident in simply being new to the rules and even in a RP heavy game combat will feel obsolete. In 3.5 you often have to look into the great multitudes of 'builds' to find this which I always felt is rather counter to the heart of the game. To that end perhaps the OD&D games and recent retro games are best though I have not played them but would love a hackmaster basic game some time.

[Flawless P]

In the edition war I prefer 3.5/pathfinder. There are plenty of petty rules reasons and tons of personal opinion but the real decider for me, right from the start, was the sense of variety and the uniqueness that came with it. 4.7 has variety sure but I just never felt the classes were unique enough, though many people in response will quickly attack the unbalance in 3rd edition I never felt that balance was too huge a factor in a roleplaying game when in general the power creep is often an intentional player choice and happens quite mid-to-late game.

The balance factor for the game is totally out of wack at high levels, but as far as in universe roleplaying goes a Wizard/Sorceror commands magic giving them abilities beyond that of a normal person, a Fighter on the other hand, is a normal person with a weapon. So it sucks from a rules standpoint. (and believe I have seen some serious cheese in my short RPG career) However, it almost makes sense, or it would if it didnt make me feel dumb for making a Fighter when I could make a Cleric.

[mathey]

3.0/3.5/Pathfinder tends to say this to me:

"Hey, Conan? Aragorn? Grey Mouser? You can SUCK it, because you aren't dolled up in robes and using sparkly wands!"

Iron Heroes - designed by a Mr. Mike Mearls - addressed this by pointing out how much cooler it'd be if badassed non-magic users could still contribute instead of waiting around for Angel Summoner to do his thing. Also, magic could corrupt you and make your testicles fall off, but that was just a bonus.

[Dom]

The important thing to remember is that an RPG is a roleplaying GAME. A game should be, in its very essence, something in which everyone can have fun. A Fighter, who at higher levels becomes a useless addition to the party, won't be fun for someone playing said Fighter. Making a balanced game simply means that everyone gets a chance to shine in different ways, even if it means giving Fighters Daily powers.

Hell, saying that it creates a disassociated mechanic, does it really matter? A Wizard is simply saying that magic exists in a world and waving a hand when deciding that spells are possible. Why can't a fighter, in a fantasy world, break the concept of what a fighter can do (simply hit things with his weapon) to show superhuman affinity with his mind and body? (Achieving exploits that are impossible for the average being through a combination of perfect control of their body and sheer determination.)

Daily powers for martial classes could simply be said to cause a huge exertion over their bodies, and using those techniques more than once per day could kill them. Makes about as much sense as why Wizards could only cast certain spells once a day. (Isn't magic in most worlds unlimited? Why would the Wizard be stopped from casting as many spells as he wants every day? Oh right, game balance.)

[Flawless P]

True which is why from a gaming aspect class balance is a great thing and I am glad they took so many steps toward achieving said balance.

Pathfinder does a pretty good job of that too if you think about it, Every classes picks up new abilities at nearly every level. While spells are still pretty sweet, so is the Paladins Mercy abilities and the Fighters Weapon/Armor Supremecy.

[Ryo]

4e is better because there are people who like to play something other than a cleric and still contribute to the group equally.

Or to put it another way, it was easy to like 1e when you rolled great, but it sucked when you had a little bad luck.

[clockworkjoe]

In the edition war I prefer 3.5/pathfinder. There are plenty of petty rules reasons and tons of personal opinion but the real decider for me, right from the start, was the sense of variety and the uniqueness that came with it. 4.7 has variety sure but I just never felt the classes were unique enough, though many people in response will quickly attack the unbalance in 3rd edition I never felt that balance was too huge a factor in a roleplaying game when in general the power creep is often an intentional player choice and happens quite mid-to-late game. My comparison is often MaOCT in which you can have a very unbalanced monster by total accident in simply being new to the rules and even in a RP heavy game combat will feel obsolete. In 3.5 you often have to look into the great multitudes of 'builds' to find this which I always felt is rather counter to the heart of the game. To that end perhaps the OD&D games and recent retro games are best though I have not played them but would love a hackmaster basic game some time.

You don't have to look very hard to find drastically different power levels in 3E - a druid 20 or wizard 20 is magnitudes more powerful than a fighter 20

hell a druid 1 or cleric 1 is more powerful than a fighter 1 and wizard 1 is at least as powerful as fighter 1 with the right spells.

I wish 4E had gone the Iron Heroes route more - the martial classes in 4E should have used a token/combo building system instead of dailies and encounters

[ethan_dawe]

Having played all D&D editions, I think my favorite so far is 3.5, but it's full of problems, especially at higher levels. That said, any game can be fun with a good game master and good players. I recall much fun playing Marvel Super Heroes from TSR, a complete shit of a game system!

[Zeriken]

When 4E first came out, all I heard were nay-sayers. I didn't bother to get the books and pretty much just jumped onto that wagon of 'I don't want anything to do with 4E.'

But then a few months ago I started listening to the RPPR podcasts for NWC, and that changed my opinion. I'm thinking about getting the books and starting up some 4E just to see how it is. It sounds fun and whatnot on the podcasts, so I figure 'what the heck, lets try it.'

[ethan_dawe]

I tried it and thought it was okay. They have really fixed things so that you don't have to wonder so much in combat. It's all very straight-forward. I still didn't buy the books though. Then a local Borders outlet was closing and I got the PHB and MM for 60% off :-)

[iceemaker]

Maybe I just don't give a crap, but I wouldn't exactly call the criticism of 4th Edition "withering". Seeing as how the complaints focus on a concept that is completely relative from group to group (role-playing) and wasn't exactly facilitated by 3rd Edition any more or less, I find the whole "edition wars" to be a very pointless affair.

Play whatever you want, and let other people play what they choose. Don't be that guy in the blog Ross linked. That guy is a jerk to the extreme.

(At the risk of getting political - the rhetoric in said blog is very reminiscient of a Talk Radio host - "I said from the beginning...", "What if Obama were...". I guess it's appropriate to find such inflammatory, innane rhetoric transcend political party wars to edition wars.)

[clockworkjoe]

It seems that the people that most want to start shit are the 3E/pathfinder grognards. They really have an axe to grind about 4E while most 4E fans are indifferent to 3E/Pathfinder.

[Kroack]

is this the second or third 3E + Variants vs 4E thread?