# You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!



## Turanil (Jun 3, 2008)

I have no time, no money, and no interest in the new edition, not even one hour to spend to go and get a look at it in the LGS. But...    I would like to hear from others how smart I am to remain away from it.   

This thread is for those who are disappointed, angry, whatever negative feeling they got about the 3 new books.

Of course, this thread is NOT to begin a flame war, only to hear about those who don't like it and to know why. Obviously, lovers of the new game should better ignore this thread and read something else...


----------



## Mark Hope (Jun 3, 2008)

4e is change.  I fear change.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 3, 2008)

So much to say...

1. 3.5 is a great game, so I don't really have a need for a completely new edition.  My beefs with 3.5 are all based on time: the time it takes to prepare, and the time it takes to play.  4E seems to have fixed the time it takes to prepare, but early reports indicate that while combat rounds are quicker, combat overall takes either just as long or longer.  

2. Loss of previous edition fluff.  I like the Great Wheel.  4E doesn't.

3. Loss of extensive spell lists for casters.  Wizards seem to have gone from hundreds upon hundreds of spell options to dozens.  Clerics now operate without spells.  I like D&D spellcasters as they are in 3.5.

4. Subscription Model.  In order to get the Core 3.5 in 4E, you'll need to buy at least 5 "core" books, and probably more.  No frost giants in the MM? No half-orc, gnome, barbarian, druid, monk, or sorcerer in the (first) 4E core books?  No thanks.

5. WotC defining fun.  The designer arrogance that the 4E changes all lead to more fun (as if "fun" is some sort of absolute truth that only they are allowed to define).

6. Lack of campatibility.  I have thousands invested in 3.5 worlds and adventures.  I don't want to have to take the time to convert them to run them - especially since most of them came from 3PPs, who sometimes put their own spins on things. 

I could probably come up with more, but that hits the heart of my beefs.


----------



## Henry (Jun 3, 2008)

4th Edition kicks puppies and uproots your flower garden looking for truffles. 

I suppose the thing I dislike most about the game is the loss of "resource strategy" that comes with the revamp of the spells into rituals and powers. It's a lot of fun to be able to reuse some nifty tricks without having to wait 24 hours, don't get me wrong, but there was a certain pleasure also in a cleric or wizard having to decide if his best spells were best spent here or in the next battle coming. You get some of that with Daily powers, but by no means are the daily powers so important that you're screwed if you commit them in the wrong battle. Also, I'm using Strategy vs. the word Tactics purposefully -- there are plenty of tactics to apply on the battlefield, but the difference between strategy in 3e vs. tactics in 4e is kind of like the difference between Wizards and Sorcerers in 3e, if that makes any sense.

The other thing I don't like is the dramatic scaling back of persistent conditions. You don't just "turn to stone", apparently; you have to miss at least a couple of die rolls before you turn to stone completely. Someone categorized this as "save or die.... soon" and it seems to fit. 

Other than those, Gygax forgive me, after having playtested it for six months, I'm liking a lot of what I see, though.


----------



## Byronic (Jun 3, 2008)

4.0 is nice. But it's also somewhat sterile, lacking character and sheer "spunk"


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 3, 2008)

Byronic said:
			
		

> 4.0 is nice. But it's also somewhat sterile, lacking character and sheer "spunk"




Wait, wasn't that 3E, or is it 2E...

...oops, I guess I have the wrong thread.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 3, 2008)

3 is one of my lucky (and therefore favored) numbers.

4 is not.

My hatred is based entirely on reason, and is therefore rational and not emotional. If you disagree, you are disagreeing with reason, and you must be stupid. This is not a personal insult.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Byronic (Jun 3, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Wait, wasn't that 3E, or is it 2E...
> 
> ...oops, I guess I have the wrong thread.




Hey, #e had plenty of character! And it even had supplements for the spunk!


----------



## Slife (Jun 3, 2008)

*Because four is death*

Because four is death.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 3, 2008)

Let's see where to start?

Minions dying from a stubbed toe.
Pcs regenerating.
Tieflings, Dragonborn as core, but gnomes, halforcs are not.
Casters that never run out of spells.
Stupid striker, defender, cc crap.
Marks and aggro.
Too many hit points.
No rolling for hit points.
Rolling for stats is optional.
Warlords as healers?
Damage is fatigue, morale, etc, but restored by a healing surge.
Misses do damage.
Teleporting at first level.
Alignment system raped.

That should do for starters.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 3, 2008)

Subscription model - which encourages leaving out iconic critters/classes or races in initial offerings to encourage purchase of later release
Druids not coming along until later in the "subscription"
Lions, most bears, tigers, pegasi apparently not coming along until later in "subscription"
Nobody ever just stabs anyone anymore, it's all _POWERS_
Short to minimal durations on effects
Side-effects of powers that affect one chosen ally (if the radiant power illuminates the target, why does that help only one person?)
Minions rules, which work for other games, are poorly adapted here
Aggro
Half the main PC races in core have Cha bonus - (are they really all more personably/ have stronger personalities than Joe Genero?)
Lack of daily life skills
Ability to heal full hit points, without help, 2+ times per day
Opponents/rewards built not based on some internally consistent rule for the creature/hoard but based on level of party


----------



## Gallo22 (Jun 3, 2008)

I really don't know what to say that hasn't already been said, such as 3.X being a very good game already, having plenty of books/resources to keep me busy til I die, loss of iconic D&D ways (gnomes, druids, spells, etc, the list is endless), lack of feel to the new system.  I could go on and on, but as we know us 3.Xers are all wrong.  

I just have to laugh inside a little bit about all the complaining that was done over the past year about what's wrong with 3.X (most of which is fixed with a simple house rule, I think we have 1 page of house rules that EASILY fixes 90% of the complaints/grips I've read in the threads) and now there is already a dozen or more threads about how to change, fix or home rule stuff for 4th Edition.  I think that's funny!

(sarcasim) I also love being told by the 4th edition lovers (even before the books were released) that 4th edition was the new coming of rpgs, yet at the same time if you stated 3.X was "just fine for me", you were off you rocker.

Anyways, back to my 3.X books.  I can't wait to pick up more of them in the cheapo bins or on the web for cheap!!!

Oh, one more thing - DITTO on pretty much everything written before me!!


----------



## Castellan (Jun 3, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Minions dying from a stubbed toe.




You know, I didn't think I'd like this, but I can see some value in it. Yes, on some level, it's kinda dumb -- let's face it, a 16th level minion with 1 hp is really silly, but I understand the basic concept behind it.



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Pcs regenerating.




Yes. Bad idea.



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Tieflings, Dragonborn as core, but gnomes, halforcs are not.




I never, *ever* liked half-orcs as a PC race. I always thought it was goofy. Especially because you've got elves and half-elves, so why not at least let the PCs play orcs (i.e. have it in the core rules)? I didn't disallow half-orcs in my games, but I very strongly suggested any other race.

Now, Dragonborn? Ugh... Completely arbitrary. Even if I someday adopt 4e (not likely) the Dragonborn will be banned from my game. If I'm playing a Planescape game, the Tieflings are OK, but otherwise, they're out, too.



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Casters that never run out of spells.




When this ability is rare, or each player has one unique "always available" ability, I think it's OK. This was taking it too far.



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Stupid striker, defender, cc crap.
> Marks and aggro.




QFT. This is not -- and never should be -- considered a MMORPG.



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Too many hit points.
> No rolling for hit points.
> Rolling for stats is optional.




Any time you take die rolls away from PC generation, I think it's bad. Let's face it: Chuck Norris and Jack Bauer do not have the same base hit points with only a variance based on Con bonus. It makes the game too "clinical." Randomly-generated monsters that the PCs fight can have the average hit points listed in the MM, but that's it. I would never do that to the players. The possibility for greatness or the lack thereof is a good thing.

That extends into the "too many hit points" comment. It's OK for 1st level players to fear death. Really. I know it sucks. I had a specially-designed bard in a recent campaign who died at 1st level. It sucked, because I had really worked hard on his personality, and was looking forward to playing him through a long career. I could also drive home from work this evening and be hit by a truck and killed. Sometimes, PCs die. It sucks. It's part of life in D&D just like reality.



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Warlords as healers?
> Damage is fatigue, morale, etc, but restored by a healing surge.




Agreed. This is silliness.



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Misses do damage.




Yeah. I'd like some of what the design team was smoking. I want my players to succeed, but wouldn't it have been easier to publish one 4e core book that simply said, "If you're a player running a Player Character, *You Win!!!*"?



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Alignment system raped.




I've read some explanations for this, but it still makes no sense. I grew up with the BECMI D&D rules, so the Law-Chaos axis makes sense even without the Good-Evil. But the lop-sided alignment chart that exists now (and what the heck is "unaligned?" Seriously, does PC have to mean Politically Correct in D&D, too?) is dumb.



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Teleporting at first level.




This, along with so many other elements of 4e exemplifies one of my biggest beefs with this version of the game.

In previous versions of the game, it was possible for characters to experience the heights of success and the depths of failure. It was possible (though unlikely) to roll a character with amazing stats, hit points, and to have a brilliant in-game career. It was equally possible to roll a character who couldn't life a toothpick or form cogent sentences. Most players would experience a game that fell somewhere into the hump of the bell curve and experience a somewhat average life with spikes of success and failure (not unlike real life, I would assume).

Now, however, it feels as if the game designers lopped off the shallow ends of that bell curve and left us with only the hump. It's a world of averages, with average players (I'm just as good as everyone else, gosh darn it!), average monsters, and average world mechanics, all doing average things. It's sterile, and boring, with villains being identified only by a red outline around their avatars so the players know who to beat up.

It's just not for me.... Oh, and my biggest complaint about the whole thing... If my dungeon group is running from the Hobgoblin King (who we thought we could take on, but didn't count on him having his demonic mistress for aid) and we run through a door, and discover we're out of spikes, I don't want the wizard saying, "Listen, chaps. Can you sort of distract that fellow for about 10 minutes while I Wizard Lock this door? It won't take a second... Well, once the ritual is done, anyway."

*sigh*

Now... you kids get off my lawn!


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Jun 3, 2008)

Ubermensch 1st level characters.
Video game feel.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 3, 2008)

The only thing I hate about 4E is the fact I do not have it yet.


----------



## Fester (Jun 3, 2008)

1) The overwhelming reason for me not going to 4.0 is simply the amount of 3.5 stuff I have sitting on my shelf.  I'd like to run the adventures and use the source books I own.

2) I like the 3.5 rule set.  I just haven't experienced the same problems that others seem to have.  There are issues, of course.  But there will be in any edition - including 4th.

3) WotC marketing.  Don't market your new game by telling me that I've been buying a bunch of crap these past years.  That's really insulting.  Sure, tell me how much better you think the new game will be, but not how much of a schmuck I've been for purchasing the existing one.

4) Fanboyism.  Their hat of d02 know no limit.  Yawn.  Their aggressive and, all too often, childish diatribe against all things 3ed really put me off the new edition.  It felt like the target audience for 4ed was much younger than previous editions.

5) The subscription model.  It's cynical.

6) The 4ed ruleset just doesn't appeal.  It's not fantasy as I like to play it.


----------



## Ginnel (Jun 3, 2008)

Broken feat/monster race/weapons
stupid new PC races
a change in the spell system 
the coinage changing 
Monsters changing
Healing changing 
Core classes changing
changing the way a whole power system works

Oh hang on which edition am I talking about


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 4, 2008)

Based on what has been discussed and previewed it looks like a tactical miniatures game with roleplying guidelines tacked on.  It might be a very fun mini game but not what I would likely run an actual campaign with. 

Overall it appears that every aspect of the game has been blunted and rounded for the safety of all who play. Having anything interesting or cool happen in combat that cannot be expressed ultimately by the mindless ablation of hit points seems impossible.  Damage seems to have been scaled way down and hit points way up in an effort to drag out a fight. I believe this will ultimately make for long combats where the players don't feel like they are getting anywhere. Effects which could immobilize, transform, or outright kill a monster or character have been condemmed as "unfun". If I were playing a mighty wizard and cast my most potent spells against a pitifully weak enemy who could shrug it off with a coin toss then I most certainly would find that unfun.

The subscription model is also very annoying. Nowhere is this more apparent than the magic item selection.  WOW one item of a given level per "slot" and all of them as devoid of flavor as day-old chewing gum.  You can add your own at the risk of adding a "game breaking" item because you actually added an item that DOES something.


----------



## Knightfall (Jun 4, 2008)

The new alignment system is not for me.
Gnomes not being in the PHB. Half-orcs too, but that one doesn't bother me as much.
Leaving out key core classes and adding in new ones that really should be follow up classes.
Changes to the core cosmology that destroys D&D canon.
Having to buy a PHB II, DMG II, MM II, etc. I don't mind buying new books, but I hate having to buy them to get what I need for my game. (Anger!)
Magic item creation changed and nerfed.
Characters and monsters are not created in a parallel way. This was one of the great innovations of 3.x, IMO.
New combat ssytem feels to much like a wargame, not an RPG.
No negative stat modifers for races.
No rolling for hit points.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jun 4, 2008)

First, I'd like to start by saying I will probably buy the new edition, mainly so as to play "stupid player races" (no LA drow cough cough)/  However, I see truth in many of these points.  The subscription model, the non-lethal combat (It's like RUNESCAPE! MOST BORING MMORPG EVER!!!), the fanboyz ("4e will replace sex" was the official line the day it was announced), the 1 hp minions (Grark broke a nail! Oh noes!).  

I don't know if anyone else has this peeve, but it seems like they are also trying to shove spell/ability flavor done your throat.  Gone are the days of signature magic missile.  I don't need a perfect description of my character's spells appearance, because I enjoy making up signature spells.

Also, rituals.  I like the concept, but must every non-combat spell be a ritual?

EDIT:  Also, I hate the death of flexibility in the name of the great god Balance (I guess illusions won't be make your own image anymore.  Can't pinpoint the source though).  And, most of the stuff that has always (to my knowledge) been in the D&D core rules, such as necromancy and illusion, isn't here because it might do something that the fighter can't and hurt his little feelings.  Summoning isn't here...considering that mythological origins of magic are summoning, this is just...wrong.  Most of the interesting abilities have been nerfed or altered.  I will buy 4e to give it a fair chance, and I do like some things, but I have a lot of grievances I hope WoTC fixes in some of their next books.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 4, 2008)

Two things I dislike related to 4E:

1) People labeling new design as "stupid" because it isn't what they are used to and they lack the imagination to explain how it may now work. (e.g. Healing Surges are NOT Regeneration. The designers may have chosen poor terminology, but it is no stretch for me to envision a Healing Surge as that burst of energy heroes get when the going gets tough and allows them to press on when normal people would fall. What's that called again? Oh yeah... a Second Wind.)

2) That the ENWorld moderators haven't merged all of these redundant "What I hate about 4E" threads. Because it's cluttering up the boards and is really just the same people saying the same things over and over and over...


----------



## Eldragon (Jun 4, 2008)

1) Reducing Cleric/Wizard spell selection. That was the fun part of being a caster; spending hours picking spells!

B)  Every Class is pigeonholed. e.g. All Wizards are Controllers. You can't make a Summoner, because you don't have the spells for it

iii) The Subscription model. If you want new pigeon holes to choose from, you will need to buy new books. 

b100) Changes to classic D&D fluff. Tieflings as corrupted humans? WTF?

five) Class balance trumps all. D&D isnt a fight club between classes, its an RPG! Wizards are supposed to be able to nuke small villages!


----------



## Neil Bishop (Jun 4, 2008)

1. The game is incomplete in terms of what I want to use it for (in particular, I hate generic clerics).

2. I prefer DMing in FR (without any of the nonsense from the novels) and I really do not like the design decisions that have been revealed so far for FR4E.

I might reconsider in a year or so once more product has been released but, as it stands, I'm really enthused about my 3.5E games again. If I want lower prep, I'll start using Savage Worlds.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 4, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Two things I dislike related to 4E:
> 
> 1) People labeling new design as "stupid" because it isn't what they are used to and they lack the imagination to explain how it may now work. (e.g. Healing Surges are NOT Regeneration. The designers may have chosen poor terminology, but it is no stretch for me to envision a Healing Surge as that burst of energy heroes get when the going gets tough and allows them to press on when normal people would fall. What's that called again? Oh yeah... a Second Wind.)




Second wind, like in SWSE, fine. I actually kind of like it. But enough times a day to recover fully at least 2x your max hit points without any magical assistance? Gimmie a break. It's not lack of imagination that doesn't make that work for some of us.



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> 2) That the ENWorld moderators haven't merged all of these redundant "What I hate about 4E" threads. Because it's cluttering up the boards and is really just the same people saying the same things over and over and over...




For that matter, they haven't merged all of the *GLEE* I LOVE 4e!!1!one! *SQUEE* threads either. Seems fair to me.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 4, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> But enough times a day to recover fully at least 2x your max hit points without any magical assistance? Gimmie a break. It's not lack of imagination that doesn't make that work for some of us.




Actually, it sort of is. All that healing sounds stupid at first, until you realize that hit points aren't "life points" anymore. In my experience it's mainly a refusal to accept this that keeps people from playing. Most of my group is anti-4e because LOL EVERYONE HEALZ. Oh, and LOL WARCRAFT, but that's another story.

I'm a competitive (amateur) MMA fighter. When I fight a match, you can bet that I am beaten half to crap and exhausted when I'm finished, win or lose. But could I fight twice more in one day? I probably could. I couldn't do it day after day for weeks and months on end, but it's safe to say that I'd be using my healing surges during the fight and between fights to keep my stamina up when I needed to.

People can't get repeatedly hit with heavy blades anyway. Hit points shouldn't be about wounds, they should be about your ability to not get wounded severely. In 3.x, taking a greatsword hit for 18 didn't mean a greatsword actually chopped your arm to the bone. It might not have even hit you, especially if you had over 100 hp. Hit Points were an abstraction then; they're even more of one now.

It's simply a lack of acceptance of change. 

If I've got 20 hit points, and someone cranks me one for 4 damage with a longsword, I didn't necessarily take a hit. But if I have to dodge 5 more blows like that, I'm gonna be so exhausted that the next one puts me in my place, on the ground and bleeding out. That's my take on it anyway. Just gotta use your imagination.

EDIT: *SQUEE* bwahaha


----------



## billd91 (Jun 4, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> Actually, it sort of is. All that healing sounds stupid at first, until you realize that hit points aren't "life points" anymore. In my experience it's mainly a refusal to accept this that keeps people from playing. Most of my group is anti-4e because LOL EVERYONE HEALZ. Oh, and LOL WARCRAFT, but that's another story.




Except that hit points were _always_ pretty abstract (since 1e at least). And even with that, recovering all of that isn't going to work for everyone's sense of the reality they'd like to model.

It might work for me in a 4-color-comic superhero game, I'll give you that.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 4, 2008)

Fester said:
			
		

> 1) The overwhelming reason for me not going to 4.0 is simply the amount of 3.5 stuff I have sitting on my shelf.  I'd like to run the adventures and use the source books I own.
> 
> 2) I like the 3.5 rule set.  I just haven't experienced the same problems that others seem to have.  There are issues, of course.  But there will be in any edition - including 4th.
> 
> ...



This is pretty much exactly me.  To expand on (6), I'd fully expected I'd buy the rulebooks and play occasionally, though I had no intention of DMing.  But a couple of jaw-droppingly stupid rules -- 1-1-1-1 movement being the first culprit -- changed my mind on that.

I genuinely hope people have a great time with 4E, while my group and I enjoy 3.5 and Pathfinder and True20 for the next several years.  Hopefully with 5E, D&D may be D&D again, and maybe it'll bring me back to the fold as 3E did.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 4, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Two things I dislike related to 4E:
> 
> 
> 2) That the ENWorld moderators haven't merged all of these redundant "What I hate about 4E" threads. Because it's cluttering up the boards and is really just the same people saying the same things over and over and over...




But it's perfectly acceptable to start a 4e roxxors thread to clutter up the boards, eh?


----------



## Treebore (Jun 4, 2008)

You know, until I read this thread I was going to give 4E another year to win me over. Now I am thinking it would be a waste of time. I think it would be more productive for me to just admit I don't like 4E enough to want it, steal the good ideas for my game, and just buy the modules.

Hmmmm. That sounds like a solid game plan for me.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 4, 2008)

Wait 2 weeks and pick them up at 1/2 Price Books Treebore


----------



## Tewligan (Jun 4, 2008)

Byronic said:
			
		

> Hey, #e had plenty of character! And it even had supplements for the spunk!



BoEF?


----------



## Agamon (Jun 4, 2008)

They didn't completely get rid of alignment.  Good lord, how is this game even playable?  Brutal.  I think I'll make my own 3.8756e version (that's what I call 4e with no alignment rules, sue me).


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

They banned two-bladed swords.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jun 4, 2008)

To 4E, or not to 4E....

It is a sign of change...a time of change, but has it....change?


----------



## Hawken (Jun 4, 2008)

Magic Missiles require an attack roll. 
No Grapple. 
Fireball now does only 3d6. 
Invisibility lasts only 1 round. 
Inflicting damage on a miss. 
Power Attack is only -2 attack, +2 damage.
A Wizard of equal level and strength has the same BAB as a Fighter.
No Monks.
There are no spells, magic is either a power or a ritual.
Everyone has powers.
No rolling for hit points, Wizards get 10hp at 1st level. 
Turn Undead lasts only 1 round.
Dragonborn as a PC race. 
Skills, no skill points or ranks.
DCs for skills depend on the level of the person attempting them rather than on what is attempted. 
Dwarves have to take a feat to get only a +1 bonus to AC against giants.
Mobility now only grants a +2 to AC vs. AoO.
Nerfed magic items/spells/feats. 
Overly reliant on gridmaps and minis.

These are just a few of the things. I've found myself agreeing with other things mentioned already and tried not to repeat them. It definitely feels video-gamey to me and devoid of roleplaying or like roleplaying was added as an afterthought so WotC could still call it a roleplaying game. 

Its kind of like Transformers Gen 1 and Armada/Energon. Sure some of the names may be the same, but just because it has the name doesn't make it the real deal. 

This edition of D&D is not D&D to me. There is no sense of adventure or accomplishment or wonder. There is no sense of skill or usefulness, you're just another PC (and you need the help of your friends to win a fight). Fighters are no longer the masters of combat--rogues, warlocks and rangers dominate that now. Clerics are just guys that can heal a little better than everyone else. Everyone else can heal without needing a cleric. Wizards are no longer the undisputed masters of magic and their spells suck more now than in any other edition.


----------



## Turanil (Jun 4, 2008)

Woah... In reading your posts it sounds really worse than what I would have expected ! 

I also find funny when we get told that people don't like the new edition "because they fear change". What of a point ! When those who don't like 4e are at the same time people who play radically different other rpg, this argument just sounds totally ludicrous.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jun 4, 2008)

A list of things people dislike is interesting enough, but i'd very much like to hear some of the well reasoned and thougtout arguments as well. Some of the points on the lists seem to me to be mostly personal taste and bitterness. 

ie. (i think i mostly quoted Hawken for this) 
invisibility lasts one round... unless its sustained w. a minor action.

power attack is -2/+2(+3)... and?

damage on a miss... And? Maybe it isn't a total miss, a little like how a fireball spell did half damage on a save in 3e.

no monks... fair enough, but tell me WHY it's a problem.

no spells only powers and rituals... yes and no. wizards powers are called spells, just as a fighters powers are called exploits. And exactly why is this a problem?

Everyone has powers... why is this a problem? Should only spellcasters get to have these kinds of choices, as in previous dnd incarnations? why? would it be a better game?

Dwarves must use a feat to get +1 ac vs giants... actually its +1 against all creatures larger than the dwarf, not just giants. So what?

Wizards are no longer the undisputed masters of magic and their spells suck more now than in any other edition... why is this a bad thing? Why is getting wizards in line with the other classes bad?

etc.

And please, never ever use the "but its a sacred cow" argument. Unless you explain why keeping the particular sacred cow in is good.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 4, 2008)

I don't like the new edition. It fairly reeks of MMO 'flavour', rank garish cheesiness, gameplay designed compassionately to cater to those with ADD and the like, and pretty blatant cash syphoning besides.

Subscribe or perish! 

Hey, you wanted emotional, right?  I couldn't quite be bothered to go the extra mile there. Hope it was still OK.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 4, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I don't like the new edition. It fairly reeks of MMO 'flavour', rank garish cheesiness, gameplay designed compassionately to cater to those with ADD and the like, and pretty blatant cash syphoning besides.
> 
> Subscribe or perish!
> 
> Hey, you wanted emotional, right?  I couldn't quite be bothered to go the extra mile there. Hope it was still OK.




You know what I find funny? After this thread made me decide to give up on 4E I felt some how freed. Released. Don't ask me why, I don't know. All I can tell you is a certain degree of tension just left me, and now I feel relaxed.

I can only guess its because I was finally able to let go of "WOTC's D&D" and just be happy with "Treebore's D&D". It sure feels like thats the right answer.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2008)

Turanil said:
			
		

> Woah... In reading your posts it sounds really worse than what I would have expected !
> 
> I also find funny when we get told that people don't like the new edition "because they fear change". What of a point ! When those who don't like 4e are at the same time people who play radically different other rpg, this argument just sounds totally ludicrous.



Well, if you see a list completely full of negatives, off course you will see a lot of negativity.
But would you agree with all the complaints? 

I think the interesting thing is that a lot of the complaints do not affect someone like me, who likes the new edition. So maybe it's an indicator that 4E is simply not universally perfect or universally bad, but good for some, and bad for others. Okay, maybe not that interesting or surprising after all...


----------



## Mark Hope (Jun 4, 2008)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I also find funny when we get told that people don't like the new edition "because they fear change". What of a point ! When those who don't like 4e are at the same time people who play radically different other rpg, this argument just sounds totally ludicrous.



Hey!  I _do_ fear change!  That's my reason and I'm sticking to it.  And quit trying to mock my lack of consistency!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> You know what I find funny? After this thread made me decide to give up on 4E I felt some how freed. Released. Don't ask me why, I don't know. All I can tell you is a certain degree of tension just left me, and now I feel relaxed.
> 
> I can only guess its because I was finally able to let go of "WOTC's D&D" and just be happy with "Treebore's D&D". It sure feels like thats the right answer.



Then, I think, it did good. This "sitting on the edge", "do I or do I not" in a decision making process can be stressful. 



> Hey! I do fear change! That's my reason and I'm sticking to it.



I usually dislike change, too! 

Hmm. Didn't Monte have a blog post on that? 
"Changing is bad, Change is good"? The idea is - the process of changing is usually hard and requires a lot of effort. Once the change is completed and things settle down, things are good (or better) again...


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 4, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> After this thread made me decide to give up on 4E I felt some how freed.




_This_ thread made you give up on 4e? Man, you fooled me. I was pretty convinced that you gave up on it about seven months ago when you got banned from another forum for deliberately trolling the populace with anti-4e sentiments.


----------



## Moonshade (Jun 4, 2008)

cwhs01 said:
			
		

> A list of things people dislike is interesting enough, but i'd very much like to hear some of the well reasoned and thougtout arguments as well. Some of the points on the lists seem to me to be mostly personal taste and bitterness.




Isn't this all about personal taste? There's no objective way to measure fun. Some people love monks, others are happy their core spot has been claimed by warlords. Some people like the idea that attacks can go so wrong that they have no effect at all, others are thrilled by the possibility that missed attacks still do damage and explain it through the enemy growing tired or losing some of its morale. Some people are bitter over the loss of things they liked about pre-4E D&D, others are prone to bitter rants about things like 3E CoDzilla and fill threads with their partying over changes to spellcasting (because no sane person could _possibly_ have liked resource management or enjoyed playing low-level mages - and if they say they did, it's alright to accuse them of being powergaming wizardlovers whose badwrongfun _has_ to have screwed over the other PCs in their group). If someone thinks it's a problem monks aren't playable, I don't need an essay that details the monk contribution to D&D and the player's fun-filled sessions playing the class in order to accept that monks not being in the core three could be a legitimate problem to that gamer.



> And please, never ever use the "but its a sacred cow" argument. Unless you explain why keeping the particular sacred cow in is good.




Hopefully people will also explain why doing away with a particular sacred cow is good, instead of just talking about how gamers fear change. Sharks hit upon a winning formula how many millions of years ago and they're still around even as other species have evolved and fallen, so change can reveal itself to be progress towards you being screwed over instead of solidifying or increasing your odds of survival.


----------



## neceros (Jun 4, 2008)

I dislike 4e because...
Oh, hey! A sandwich. Nom, nom, nom.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jun 4, 2008)

Your post was actually a lot more helpful than a short list of "things i dislike". 
It doesn't have to be a ten page essay on the merits of a particular Feat in 3e as opposed to its 4e equivalent. But a few thoughts as to WHY one dislikes a particular thing in 4e is alot better than just a remark that it is badwrongfun.

Badwrongfun comments are unhelpful regardless of which edition they are being used against.





			
				Moonshade said:
			
		

> If someone thinks it's a problem monks aren't playable, I don't need an essay that details the monk contribution to D&D and the player's fun-filled sessions playing the class in order to accept that monks not being in the core three could be a legitimate problem to that gamer.
> 
> 
> Hopefully people will also explain why doing away with a particular sacred cow is good, instead of just talking about how gamers fear change. Sharks hit upon a winning formula how many millions of years ago and they're still around even as other species have evolved and fallen, so change can reveal itself to be progress towards you being screwed over instead of solidifying or increasing your odds of survival.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jun 4, 2008)

My own (short) list and a few comments.


The marketing of 4e: WoTC has been very open in pointing out what they perceived as flaws in earlier editions. This ofcourse alienated and upset people who saw these as not bugs but features. Good examples are alignment, Great Wheel cosmology, Spellcasters being superior to non-spellcasters at high levels.
They could have done a better job of not antagonizing people, but stressing that 4e is a new game with new design considerations. 3e is a good game, 4e is also a good game, but have changed a few formerly sacred cows to facilitate gameplay for all charactertypes.

Backwards compatibility is mostly gone: 3e crunch is very different from 4e, meaning that alot of money invested in 3e books is wasted if one wants to move to exclusively playing the new edition. Some fluff may be salvaged wholesale. A lot is outdated.

Gamism at the cost of "realism" (per a suitable definition of realism, as it was defined by the 3e ruleset): Jury's out on this one. I think it might be a better game, but there will be arguments and discussions about things such as HP, Encounter and daily powers. I think and hope it will be okay, once one accepts it and learn not to think to hard about fantasy...

Simplification of the skillsystem: Love it and hate it. Like that non-adventurer relevant skills have been left to fluff and background descriptions, dislike the loss of skillpoints/ranks, and that ALL skills advance with levelgain. 

Minor nitpicks: I have no minor nitpicks. It's a new edition with changes to the base math that necesitates changes to alot of things including, spells, feats and skills.


----------



## Hawken (Jun 4, 2008)

To further explain myself, I'll respond without quoting everything cwhs01 wrote:

--Invisibility: Never had to be "sustained" in any previous edition. Doing so now doesn't add to the game, make it neater, more streamlined or whatever. It just nerfs a good combat/utility spell. Now its a level 6 "power" and it takes a standard action to sustain. Improved Invisibility sustains with a minor and that's 16th level--and it still ends when the invis person attacks so its not as Improved as 2e and 3e Improved.

--Power Attack: And? And no more getting to calculate how much BAB to trade off for damage. And in a game where a "4th level" dragon has more HP than a party of 10th level characters (as an example), being able to do that extra damage can come in pretty handy!

--Damage on a miss: Nope, actual misses. Whiff...bam! Plenty of examples.

--No Monks: This is a problem, not exclusive to Monks but including all other "core" classes not included; barbarian, bard, sorcerer, etc.. And its a problem precisely because they are NOT there. The choice is not there. 

--Spells/Rituals: These are powers. Spells stopped being spells when they stopped "casting" them. Now they just happen. No chance of disruption, no more casting defensively. And at will Magic Missiles (just one example) is now a power, it also stopped being a spell when you can do it an unlimited number of times per day--at 1st level! 

--Everyone...powers: To sloppily quote from the Incredibles, "If everyone is special, then no one is." Call it exploits, or spells, if that makes you happy, whatever you need to try and bring a fantasy (not superhero) feel back to the game, but they went in the wrong direction with this stuff. Everyone can, more or less, do about the same thing, there's just a different power source labeled to it and slightly different fluff. 

--Dwarves: Actually, its against Large and bigger enemies. And for 3 previous editions its been +4 to AC and they didn't have to spend a feat to get it. If you were a Dwarf, a Giant had to work at squashing you. Now, the Dwarf has to take a feat to get a bonus that doesn't even come close to mitigating a Giant's attack bonus. While not "sacred cow" material, it is classic. Its just Dodge for Dwarves, and that isn't even around anymore.

--Wizards: Say what? Why is it bad that WIZARDS are not the masters of the arcane anymore? Why is it bad their spells suck? Why would someone want to become a wizard just to get sucky spells? The point of Wizards is cool spells--getting to do what no one, or relatively few, other people can do. Not getting to do what the Fighter and Ranger can do, but having to wear a dress while doing it. 

Extending this to all classes, there is no compelling reason anymore to play one class over another. They all basically do about the same amount of damage at just about every level and have virtually no differences outside of combat beyond what they can wear. It just depends on whether you want to do that damage by weapon or some kind of energy. Sure, Wizards can Fly for...1 round, but a Fighter can drink a potion and doesn't need to be 16th or 19th level do to it! 

Despite the semi-sarcastic tone, there is no bitterness here, instead it is immense disappointment. I've played D&D through all its editions, having started off with my first red and blue boxes when I was seven or eight and this is the first time I've been disappointed with the game. This doesn't have the FEEL of D&D. Instead I find myself looking for the slot on my books for the quarters to go into. 

One more thing: Group play. This edition is designed for a group and a group of different classes. 3e went that way, but with tweaking only on the monsters the DM threw at you, it could easily be played solo. 1e and 2e had no such thing as this almost mandatory group design. You could play solo or in a group. You could play in a group of dwarf fighters, whatever, and you wouldn't be at any great disadvantage over a group of mixed races and classes. 

Here its designed for practically one of each race and class in a group, and you can't solo unless its considerably weaker monsters. Any 3e character, same race/class, is much more powerful in combat than a 4e character. Allowing for 4e 30 levels supposed to be the same scale as 3e 20 levels too. You put a 6th level 3e fighter against a 9th level 4e fighter and that 3e will out damage and out fight him! 

4e is pretty much a watered down version of D&D. A Junior edition if you will! "Here kid, play this 4e until you're ready to step up to the major leagues and play 1e or 2e or 3e!" Ha! "You think your snazzy 21st level 4e Magic Missile is something doing 4d6 damage? Wait til you see all the dice you gotta roll for your Grandpa's 21st level 1e Magic Missile! Now THAT is a Magic Missile!"


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 4, 2008)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I have no time, no money, and no interest in the new edition



I dispute 2 of these 3 claims. If they were all true, this thread would not exist.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 4, 2008)

For so long, we've been waiting for a magic system that works. More generic, less powerful, an simpler spellcasters. The new magic system works much better than any of the previous ones. The problem is, fighters use it to. And rogues. This unified system of "powers" sounds great, but it kills one of the most fundamental aspects of D&D: the dichotomy of the normal people and the magical ones.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 4, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> _This_ thread made you give up on 4e? Man, you fooled me. I was pretty convinced that you gave up on it about seven months ago when you got banned from another forum for deliberately trolling the populace with anti-4e sentiments.




No trolling in this thread please. If you don't like the new edition feel free to post about it here. Don't get personal and don't get off topic though.

Thanks


----------



## Turanil (Jun 4, 2008)

I want to remind some people that this thread is indeed to complain about the last edition, and that lovers of this new game are strongly encouraged to ignore the thread.

Unless of course... 

...that what some people hate about 4e, is the fact that some people hate it.   

(I think it's time for a new edition of a well known quote: "My hat of e4 knows no limit"    )


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2008)

Turanil said:
			
		

> Unless of course...
> 
> ...that what some people hate about 4e, is the fact that some people hate it



Yes, that's what I hate. If I would have a hatred for something like this. 



			
				Turanil said:
			
		

> (I think it's time for a new edition of a well known quote: "My hat of e4 knows no limit"    )





There must be some misguided fellow with bad spelling out there that hates 4E and needs to vent about it on a message board. Just give it time. He might not have heard of 4E yet...


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jun 4, 2008)

I wouldn't say I "dislike" 4E, per se; it's more that I'm strangely apathetic about it.    

As a life-long D+D player (I'll date myself and say late-70's on), I just don't care for the direction the game is currently headed, both fluff AND crunch wise.  And I don't see the need to shell out $90+ to get a new rules set when the 3.5/ Pathfinder set works for me and my group.

And, more importantly, I think that the way WotC handled the 9-month lead-up to 4E was poorly designed and executed. (Yes, perceptions of a company can DEFINTIELY impact people opinions.)

The fact that:
A) It's not really backwards-compatible is a drawback.  (Hell, I find myself playing more Gamecube games than Wii games lately!!!) 

B) The execution of this plan, from start to finish, was sloppy; 
WotC had NINE MONTHS to "Wow" us with 4E; IMO, they made an Epic Fail. I feel, especially in the early stages, they really alienated fans (and possibly other publishers), with the removal of print Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and the annoucement (and subsequent delay) of the GSL.  

Meanwhile, Digital Dungeon and Digital Dragon?  While the contents remain largely the same as before, it's a PAIN to read online to me, especially when things are doled out in tiny increments.  (And is it just me, or do they not even have compiled PDF issues!?)

C) The Digital Inititative/ Gleemax:  Putting E-Dungeon and E-Dragon aside, the DI is a complete debacle.  Gleemax remains unnavigatable and poorly designed and organized.  And I think it's a real mistake to launch 4E without a usable online character generator, especially when they touted the online components as a "cornerstone of the 4E experience."


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Jun 4, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Two things I dislike related to 4E:
> 
> <snip>
> 2) That the ENWorld moderators haven't merged all of these redundant "What I hate about 4E" threads. Because it's cluttering up the boards and is really just the same people saying the same things over and over and over...




You could say the same about all the "omg, 4e is the rox0rs!" threads.
Go away.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2008)

Kheti sa-Menik said:
			
		

> You could say the same about all the "omg, 4e is the rox0rs!" threads.
> Go away.



Which threads are you talking about?


----------



## Grimstaff (Jun 4, 2008)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I have no time...and no interest in the new edition




Obviously...


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 4, 2008)

Lets see..

1. Its still too soon IMO for a new edition. Theres plenty of material left that could have been done for 3.X before they even considered doing a new edition.

2. WotC have removed pretty much everything that made D&D "D&D." The whole feel of the game has gone.

3. 4th is aimed towards an audience that hasn't the faintist notion of interacting with other people over a tabletop - an audience where powergaming is a must in their WoW lives. This is not the audience that it should be directed at.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jun 4, 2008)

Hawken said:
			
		

> To further explain myself, I'll respond without quoting everything cwhs01 wrote:





Much better and informative than the short list. This is actually helpful for me (generally a 4e positivist), trying to understand the 4e hate. Which should be the real point of this thread, rather than 4e haters patting each others backs. imo.

also. It seemed i made a few factual errors as well, when i tried correcting yours. dangit


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 4, 2008)

I wouldn't say I hate the new edition (I have not read the rules or played it - so that would be silly), but from all the data I have been able to collect on it so far it just doesn't feel "right" to me.

It seems like it could be a decent and even fun game, and I could imagine these kinds of rules if I were seeking to emulate something akin to Warhammer Quest (which is not meant as a put down, I have had hours of fun playing that game), but it does not seem like it would satisfy _my _ D&D jones.  I have always been one of them grim n' gritty D&D players and DMs - where choices are hard and you'd better have enough rations and rope, and it is the struggle that defines the level of fun - 4E seems a little too WAHOO! to me, I guess.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Which threads are you talking about?




Exactly. I see many "I hate 4E" threads. Each of them have the same people spouting the same things. Where are all of these supposed "4E Roxxors!!!!1111oneoneone!!!!" threads?

Links please?

Edit: Oh, you probably mean all the threads where people are rationally discussing new features of the game.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 4, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Two things I dislike related to 4E:
> 
> 1) People labeling new design as "stupid" because it isn't what they are used to and they lack the imagination to explain how it may now work. (e.g. Healing Surges are NOT Regeneration. The designers may have chosen poor terminology, but it is no stretch for me to envision a Healing Surge as that burst of energy heroes get when the going gets tough and allows them to press on when normal people would fall. What's that called again? Oh yeah... a Second Wind.)
> 
> 2) That the ENWorld moderators haven't merged all of these redundant "What I hate about 4E" threads. Because it's cluttering up the boards and is really just the same people saying the same things over and over and over...




I do not see pointing out lazy, and overly hamfisted game design decisions to be an indicator of a lack of imagination. Lack of imagination is creating a rule that makes no sense (even in a fantasy world) and stating the reason for said rule as "just because".  Just realize that for those of us with doubts that people screaming " 4E is teh sex" before it is even fully tested can be a tad annoying too. Actual massive playtesting will begin on June 6. If 4E achieves the balance that it was striving for then at least there will be a somewhat decent tabletop minis game. If not, then 4E will have absolutely nothing going for it because they sacrificed all manner of flavor to arrive at this "'balance".


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 4, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Second wind, like in SWSE, fine. I actually kind of like it. But enough times a day to recover fully at least 2x your max hit points without any magical assistance? Gimmie a break. It's not lack of imagination that doesn't make that work for some of us.




If the rule doesn't work for you that's one thing. But please don't insult those of us who like the idea by mockingly calling it Regeneration. A well-reasoned statement that you believe characters are given too many healing surges per day for your tastes is much preferred over mockery.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 4, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I do not see pointing out lazy, and overly hamfisted game design decisions to be an indicator of a lack of imagination. Lack of imagination is creating a rule that makes no sense (even in a fantasy world) and stating the reason for said rule as "just because".  Just realize that for those of us with doubts that people screaming " 4E is teh sex" before it is even fully tested can be a tad annoying too. Actual massive playtesting will begin on June 6. If 4E achieves the balance that it was striving for then at least there will be a somewhat decent tabletop minis game. If not, then 4E will have absolutely nothing going for it because they sacrificed all manner of flavor to arrive at this "'balance".




But everyone's point of reference is past editions of the game. Gary Gygax and others created a set of arbitrary rules that reflected what they thought reflected a fantasy game. Others came along and had to use their imagination to take that set of rules and make it "the way things work" in this new fantasy world. Other RPG creators came along and created their own vision of "the way things work" in a fantasy world (e.g. Earthdawn had healing surges, at-will magic, everyone has 'powers', etc.). Now the 4E team has created "the way things work" for a brand new game. That's right - brand new. And I for one am glad that a new edition is a new game, because I wouldn't want to buy a rehash of the same old thing.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 4, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> But everyone's point of reference is past editions of the game. Gary Gygax and others created a set of arbitrary rules that reflected what they thought reflected a fantasy game. Others came along and had to use their imagination to take that set of rules and make it "the way things work" in this new fantasy world. Other RPG creators came along and created their own vision of "the way things work" in a fantasy world (e.g. Earthdawn had healing surges, at-will magic, everyone has 'powers', etc.). Now the 4E team has created "the way things work" for a brand new game. That's right - brand new. And I for one am glad that a new edition is a new game, because I wouldn't want to buy a rehash of the same old thing.




I agree 100%. 4E might be very successful as a brand new game and the rules could run very smoothly. It's the D&D part that it fails at.


----------



## Turanil (Jun 4, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> If the rule doesn't work for you that's one thing. But please don't insult those of us who like the idea by mockingly calling it Regeneration. A well-reasoned statement that you believe characters are given too many healing surges per day for your tastes is much preferred over mockery.



Obviously, what you don't like about 4e is simply that some people don't like it, and, oh the odious lack of politically correctness (!), even make fun of it!

Well, obviously this thread is not for you. Why don't you just ignore it, as much as I ignore the threads that rave about 4e? (or at least don't post negative comments in them.)


----------



## Aaron (Jun 4, 2008)

No trip.

No disarm.

No grapple.

Wasn't this the "more options edition"?


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 4, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Exactly. I see many "I hate 4E" threads. Each of them have the same people spouting the same things. Where are all of these supposed "4E Roxxors!!!!1111oneoneone!!!!" threads?
> 
> Links please?
> 
> Edit: Oh, you probably mean all the threads where people are rationally discussing new features of the game.





Which still doesn't explain the reason why you feel the need to come into this one and post it when it obviously bothers you so much and you cannot stick to the spirit of the thread the OP was trying to foster.

Ignoring a thread is (or at least should be) easier than crapping in it.

And I say that as both a mod and poster.

Thanks.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jun 4, 2008)

Aaron said:
			
		

> No trip.
> 
> No disarm.
> 
> ...





Not really the entire truth here is it? 

Disarm is gone, correct, unless a GM allows it with the stunt mechanic as explained in the dmg.

Grapple is in, but simplified.  

Trip is in, but mostly done with specific powers or the stunt mechanic.

But these three mechanics won't be the basis for fighter archetypes as they were in 3e.

Oh, and non-casters DO have more options than ever before. The options for casters have been nerfed bigtime, especially druids (obviously...) and clerics. I think it balances out.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I agree 100%. 4E might be very successful as a brand new game and the rules could run very smoothly. It's the D&D part that it fails at.



I believe that it fails for you in the D&D part. 

As an example, el-remmen has described what kind of things he likes from his D&D game. For me, they don't sound like the D&D I played, and I would want to play. Maybe my D&D is not the "True D&D", but what I prefer to think is that D&D can be different things to different people. It matters which edition they "grew up" with (if you can grow up with something at the age of 20) and they had the most fun it. (And if they never had fun it, they probably think of D&D as something bad and the bane of all good role-playing, and play Vampire or Das Schwarze Auge...  )

And 4E so far doesn't fail to be D&D for me. But it might very well fail for you or el-remmen at being D&D.

(And why am I posting this in the "anti 4E" thread? Because I want to force everyone to accept and admit that his understanding of D&D is not the only true form, damn it!  )


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Maybe my D&D is not the "True D&D",




There is no such thing as "true D&D". 




			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> (And why am I posting this in the "anti 4E" thread? Because I want to force everyone to accept and admit that his understanding of D&D is not the only true form, damn it!  )




Yes, exactly what I was trying to get at when I said that 4E doesn't seem like it'd satisfy _my_ D&D jones - the emphasis was there to emphasize that.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 4, 2008)

While there are many, _many _(many) specific things I don't like about 4E, my main issue is with the high-level design goal itself.

4E made the classes extremely specific in what they can do and in doing so, made characters less customizable.  Wizards are blasters.  Period.  You don't have the option of playing one any other way.  No spell lists - all spells are abilities now.  Creating an arbitrary ritual list instead of actually fixing spellcasting.  

I also think the fluff and implied setting is weaksauce.  Dragonborn, tieflings, tissueweave armor?  Yuck.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Yes, exactly what I was trying to get at when I said that 4E doesn't seem like it'd satisfy _my_ D&D jones - the emphasis was there to emphasize that.



Your Emphasis can't be emphasized enough.


----------



## Eldragon (Jun 4, 2008)

I was really quite excited about 4e. I'm not a huge fan of Vancian magic, but the massive spell selection and the raw power of the Mage made it worth it. So when WotC said they were switching to a Daily/Encounter power system I thought that was the right way to go. 

But by cutting the spell selection down to 1/20th of what it used to be was a massive mistake on WotC part. 

I see it like going to the doctor with a broken toe, and he fixes the problem by cutting off the foot.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 4, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> If the rule doesn't work for you that's one thing. But please don't insult those of us who like the idea by mockingly calling it Regeneration. A well-reasoned statement that you believe characters are given too many healing surges per day for your tastes is much preferred over mockery.




Out of the thread now, vyvyan Basterd.

You probably shouldn't even be reading this thread, and it certainly isn't your place to come into this thread and attempt to convert people to your view.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 4, 2008)

4e is clearly marketed towards new players or amnesiac ones. Mentioning FR and DL as the first campaign settings? A nod to Blackmoor and Greyhawk would have been appropriate. 3e had a conversion manual. I easily adapted a 1e campaign into a 3e one. 4e wants everyone to abandon everything and begin anew. 

   4e clearly wants to tell you how to play and how to have "fun". I believe the quote was "It's not fun to make characters guess what a magic item is or try to use a magic item without knowing its capabilities." What a load of nonsense.

   4e is supposedly even more combat-oriented and mini-dependent. I view that as a defect, but I'm sure those who view D&D as a vast battle arena will be overjoyed. 

   I could critique all of the entries missing from the 4e MM (locathah, sea elves, merfolk, greenhags, annis, sea hags, etc), but it would be countered with "they'll be in later editions" or "just make them up yourself".

   I could always resort to my prior 4e concerns; loss of Greyhawk, no Mac port for the DDI applications, absence of prior core races and classes, and so on, but where's the fun in that.

   I'm sure in 3-4 years, 4e will be almost as fun as 3e.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 4, 2008)

Aaron said:
			
		

> No trip.
> 
> No disarm.
> 
> ...




No.

4E has, to the best of my knowledge, never once been marketed as the option with more options. It was supposed to be the "more fun" edition. And that's pretty much my whole problem with it.

I could go on about things like the crippled alignment system, the near-total dearth of fluff or the utterly nerfed mechanics. But the basic complaint I have is, whereas 3.X was built under the "options, not restrictions" credo, 4E is "restrictions in the name of FUN" edition.

The marketing has been very clear on this. 4E has been extensively worked and playtested because the designers _know_ what's fun and what isn't, and have thrown out everything that hinders the players getting to this goal. Restrictions have been gleefully implemented so as to better funnel players to this end. Except, as many people have noted, that's what's ruining it for a lot of people.

3.X was relatively broad in what it could do; 4E has sacrificed that to do one specific game-style very well. People who don't play D&D in that style, however, are pretty much out of luck.

Add in to that a lot of the other, related things I don't like (the design philosophy of deliberately holding back popular things to make supplements feel like necessities, the D&DI, the restriction-happy GSL) and it should be easy to see why I'm not at all interested in 4E.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 4, 2008)

I don't like it because I am a world builder.

I want a game that is about making a cool world and then using that world to build cool characters in it.  4E, to me, is exactly the opposite.  4E is about building the characters and skewing the rest of the world to fit those characters.  

I want a world where a monster is imagined and designed to be exactly whatever the DM sees it as.  Not a world where its attack bonus and AC are confined to a range to match its level.  Not a world where a monster might be a soldier if you meet it one time and a minion if you meet it another.

I want a world where gauntlets of ogre strength simply make you stronger.  Being stronger means being stronger and then you deal with balancing that in the game, or not bothering to balance it, as best fits what is fun to you at the time.  I don't want a world where gauntlets of ogre strength are simply as close as you can get to "stronger" within the the math constraints for a encounter expected to include level X items.  I don't want anything to be defined by balance.  I want everything to be defined by what it is and then have balance work backward from there.  

I want a world where magic missle isn't just the wizard's version of a longbow.

I want a game which makes a world where the characters don't matter at all, and then leave it up to the players, including the DM, to make characters that make themselves matter.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I believe that it fails for you in the D&D part.
> 
> As an example, el-remmen has described what kind of things he likes from his D&D game. For me, they don't sound like the D&D I played, and I would want to play. Maybe my D&D is not the "True D&D", but what I prefer to think is that D&D can be different things to different people. It matters which edition they "grew up" with (if you can grow up with something at the age of 20) and they had the most fun it. (And if they never had fun it, they probably think of D&D as something bad and the bane of all good role-playing, and play Vampire or Das Schwarze Auge...  )
> 
> ...




Here are my feelings on "true" D&D:

The only "true" D&D is OD&D (1974). This is NOT the edition that I grew up playing. It is "true" only because it is the basis for all other flavors. To use a food metaphor, OD&D is a basic hearty soup.

As new editions emerged, ingredients were added to the basic "soup" to provide added texture and flavor. Different combinations of ingredients were used to produce different flavored soups. 

Everyone has thier favorite soup flavor which is the preferred recipe for D&D soup to them. 

D&D 4E tastes like Mexicali Soup* to me. Too many ingredients were taken out for my taste.

*(Please read the short story of the same name by Kathryn Hitte to grasp my meaning)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Here are my feelings on "true" D&D:
> 
> The only "true" D&D is OD&D (1974). This is NOT the edition that I grew up playing. It is "true" only because it is the basis for all other flavors. To use a food metaphor, OD&D is a basic hearty soup.
> 
> ...



This is a good metaphor. I'd just adjust it to say that ingredients you preferred where taken out. 

I think there is a very narrow core to D&D (basically the essence of what existed in OD&D(1974) ). This core can make something D&D, but it doesn't automatically make it a good game. Usually, each edition had more elements that helped to refine the game into something liked by enough people to become a success. 

---

So, to finally say something actually on-topic, I think these are the things I dislike most: 
- Lack of Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk and Sorcerer. They are not core to D&D, but I enjoyed their flavor in 3E, and I would have preferred to have them in the initial PHB. (But not at the expense of the Warlord.)

Yes, I know that this would probably increase the page count by 50 %. So what, I have the money for a more expensive PHB, and I can dream, can I not?

- Too many daily powers. I would have preferred less of them. I presume it won't cause any actual problems in game, nor do I know how they could be replaced with something better, but that's how I feel.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 4, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I don't like it because I am a world builder.



Fair enough. I'm a world-builder too, but I think 4e will do a fine job handling my long-running homebrew, CITY. Most setting elements look easier to model, a few look tougher, none seem particularly difficult.  



> 4E is about building the characters and skewing the rest of the world to fit those characters.



How exactly? How is the 'skewing' --which stems from the need for an escalating of PC challenges-- any different in 4e than in the previous editions?

From what I've seen so far after a cursory read-through, 4e allows for more "normal" worlds, with less of an impetus towards the 'Marvel/DC universe in fantasy-drag' that almost always happens with 3.5-built settings. 



> I want a world where a monster is imagined and designed to be exactly whatever the DM sees it as.



This seems easier in 4e.



> Not a world where a monster might be a soldier if you meet it one time and a minion if you meet it another.



Note this is no different from a 1st level 3e character meeting a CR2 creature, then meeting the same one when they're level 12.  



> I want a game which makes a world where the characters don't matter at all, and then leave it up to the players, including the DM, to make characters that make themselves matter.



This has always been the product of individual DM's and players creating their games. It's not fundamentally a rules/system issue.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 4, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> How exactly? How is the 'skewing' --which stems from the need for an escalating of PC challenges-- any different in 4e than in the previous editions?.



The skewing comes from the world operating differently for a character because he is a PC. If a PC fights an NPC in a chase/running type of battle and each one has 4 healing potions to use during lulls, the NPC is screwed because he hasn't got the healing surges to use them. There is no problem with the DM designing certain encounters with creatures that exist only to die in a drawn out fight, but the rules of the physical world shouldn't be altered to force this.


			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> From what I've seen so far after a cursory read-through, 4e allows for more "normal" worlds, with less of an impetus towards the 'Marvel/DC universe in fantasy-drag' that almost always happens with 3.5-built settings.
> 
> 
> This seems easier in 4e.




If anything this is backwards. 4E PC's are all superheroes from level one. There are essentially only 4 classes that matter now-defender,striker, leader, and controller. You can call them roles but they are the new classes and all more like a super than any class in 3rd or any prior edition. 



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Note this is no different from a 1st level 3e character meeting a CR2 creature, then meeting the same one when they're level 12.




Not really. Minion status denotes certain characteristics that 3E didn't use. That CR 2 creature might not be a threat to the level 12 character but its the same creature. A minion could be a large demon of the party's level. They may fight such a creature as a solo or elite monster and almost die trying to overcome it, then march into the next chamber with 6 of the same guys guarding the big bad guy and these all get downed by a pimp slap. Not the same at all.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 4, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> The skewing comes from the world operating differently for a character because he is a PC.



D&D has always worked like this. 



> There is no problem with the DM designing certain encounters with creatures that exist only to die in a drawn out fight, but the rules of the physical world shouldn't be altered to force this.



Don't assume the game rules are the rules of the (fictional) physical world, then. And if you want NPC's to have Healing Surges, just do it. 



> 4E PC's are all superheroes from level one.



This just isn't true. But besides that, I was thinking more of the ability to model the opposition and supporting character using 4e. Things like giving everyone access to rituals, minion status, etc. make it easier to represent a lot of classic fantasy archetypes.



> That CR 2 creature might not be a threat to the level 12 character but its the same creature.



It's now a creature that can survive one hit from said 12th level PC. So you might as well say it has 1HP. No practical difference. 



> Not the same at all.



You're demonstrating that a bad DM could use the Minion rules badly. That a bad carpenter can whack the hell out of his own fingers should not reflect poorly on the hammer...


----------



## cholke (Jun 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I believe that it fails for you in the D&D part.
> 
> As an example, el-remmen has described what kind of things he likes from his D&D game. For me, they don't sound like the D&D I played, and I would want to play. Maybe my D&D is not the "True D&D", but what I prefer to think is that D&D can be different things to different people. It matters which edition they "grew up" with (if you can grow up with something at the age of 20) and they had the most fun it. (And if they never had fun it, they probably think of D&D as something bad and the bane of all good role-playing, and play Vampire or Das Schwarze Auge...  )
> 
> And 4E so far doesn't fail to be D&D for me. But it might very well fail for you or el-remmen at being D&D.




I guess this is where I think it is sad. It seems as if we all could, in some way or another, play in 3.xe. It just seems that some people, myself included, feel as if their style of play is being pushed to the curb. The system that once enabled many styles of play has now eliminated a large majority for pure design reasons. 

I know I don't have the direct market knowledge that WOTC has, but I have learned a thing or two. 3e seemed to bring back a lot of gamers that had dropped off and brought excitement to new players. 4e seems to be, with its distinct design principles, leaving a lot of players behind. These players have admitted to spending a lot of money on the prior edition. I myself am at the stage in my life where I don't have to save my allowance or ask someone else to buy my game products. There was a period of about a year where I didn't play at all and probably bought $2000 worth of gaming material. These players have not stopped gaming. They will continue to game and find other outlets potential gaming outlets (we're all junkies) for their money. I understand seeking new players and expanding the market, but to do so at the cost of losing a potentially large customer base due to arbitrary design issues does not seem like the best business sense. 

It is quite expected that people that have devoted a large part of their lives to this game feel disenfranchised by this decision. My wife works in brand management. Their is a fine line between taking bold moves in knowing that your brand is strong enough to weather the change and being so different that you lose all the goodwill you have built with a sizable portion of your customer base.


----------



## Stereofm (Jun 4, 2008)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I have no time, no money, and no interest in the new edition, not even one hour to spend to go and get a look at it in the LGS. But...    I would like to hear from others how smart I am to remain away from it.
> 
> This thread is for those who are disappointed, angry, whatever negative feeling they got about the 3 new books.




I would not answer this again, but since you are wrting from France ...

I have seen nothing in 4e previews that I find even remotely attractive.
None of the highlights appeal to me.
All of the bad points (nuking FR ... ) are actually repulsive to me.
I don't need it, as I have a group of players who share my views.
(edited reason)
There are plenty of other games that actually appeal to me and look far superior.
It looks like a giant battlemap with no goal.
The marketing was horrible and severely insulting, and I don't condone and reward this kind of "professionalism".
I don't want to learn the new system.

4 e is my nemesis.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 4, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Fair enough. I'm a world-builder too, but I think 4e will do a fine job handling my long-running homebrew, CITY. Most setting elements look easier to model, a few look tougher, none seem particularly difficult.



If you see it that way then you need to start educating the 4e defenders who trumpet the virtues of "the rules are not physics" and "the rules apply to PCs differently" and "the rules shouldn't need to handle things that happen when the characters are not on stage."

Why did Mearls say it wouldn't appeal as much to world builders?

This double standard has repeated over and over.  People praise 4e for cutting through so much stuff and then turn around and try to act like it has not cut through anything when the down sides are pointed out.

4E can not come close to providing the quality of model that I've been enjoying for years now.



> How exactly? How is the 'skewing' --which stems from the need for an escalating of PC challenges-- any different in 4e than in the previous editions?



 Please, there has been thread after thread praising this exact aspect of 4e.  In 4e things are not designed to be a persistent element of the world.  They are designed to function in a certain way, within certain mathematical constraints, during the limited time that they are on stage with the PCs.  They are skewed into being only presented relative to PCs and they are skewed to having all their stats fit allowable ranges (right down to just saying that magic items over X limit just don't work) based purely on the meta concept of level.



> This seems easier in 4e.



Wrong.  The constraints on a creature based on level are much tighter than they were in 3E based on CR.  When I was initially optimistic about 4e, the restrictions in place on monsters were the type thing I wanted to see cleared up.  Instead they  tightened the grip.  



> Note this is no different from a 1st level 3e character meeting a CR2 creature, then meeting the same one when they're level 12.



 No.  it isn't.  In 3e the mechanics don't change.



> This has always been the product of individual DM's and players creating their games. It's not fundamentally a rules/system issue.



That is just simply false.  Some mechanics do a vastly superior job of modeling the way a world works than others.  I could build a campaign setting for the game Descent.  So at the very extreme minimal level, yeah, you can do it for any system.  But the rules of Descent do not allow me the latitude to mechanically tie the setting elements to how the world works.  4E is much better than Descent and much worse than 3E for this.  Both 4E and Descent are no where good enough for my expectations.

4E is streamlined and faster and easier.  Those were design goals and they appeared to have achieved them.  That people are trying to act like there was no trade off for these "gains" is laughable to me.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 4, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> D&D has always worked like this.



That is simply false.
The rules for PCs and NPCs have been completely the same in my games for many years.

Granted, it was somewhat true in editions prior to 3E.  But, I left D&D for better games then as well.  So I'm just being consistent.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 4, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I don't like it because I am a world builder.
> 
> I want a game that is about making a cool world and then using that world to build cool characters in it.  4E, to me, is exactly the opposite.  4E is about building the characters and skewing the rest of the world to fit those characters.
> 
> ...





Oh, very well said, Sir.  I agree 100%.

RC


----------



## Creeping Death (Jun 4, 2008)

I've been using the great wheel since the 1ed Manual of the Planes.  I love Planescape and use it a lot.

I liked some of the things that were added to 4ed, the idea behind minions, skill challenges, and such.  But the changes they made to demons, devils, and the outerplanes totally turned me off.  So much so, that I won't buy it.  I'll look at the books at the book store, I'll even play it if someone lets me borrow a copy of a PHB to create a character, but I won't spend money on it.

I fully expect to be able to pick up 3.xed stuff for a bargain at my local stores or online if need be.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 4, 2008)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Lets see..
> 
> 1. Its still too soon IMO for a new edition. Theres plenty of material left that could have been done for 3.X before they even considered doing a new edition.
> 
> ...




1.WotC was down to writing entire books about climate and still not doing a very good job w/them.  I think 3.5 came too soon, but I skipped that entire edition so I'm fine w4E coming along now.

2.Obviously our mileage varies

3.(Removed answer)


I hate the insane competitiveness between the "sides" of the editions.  I would much rather see people getting along and enjoying a new edition (or the old one), but that hasn't ever happened since they started creating new editions, so I won't hol my breath


----------



## Casupaa (Jun 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I don't like it because I am a world builder.
> 
> I want a game that is about making a cool world and then using that world to build cool characters in it.  4E, to me, is exactly the opposite.  4E is about building the characters and skewing the rest of the world to fit those characters.
> 
> ...




I totally agree. I've been so excited about 4E since it was announced, and I've followed the development on daily basis and been very supportive about the changes that the designers wanted to do, but now, after learning how it turned out, I cant help to feel really disappointed. To me, 3.5 feels like a real living world. 4E feels more like a hollow shell. But hey, nothing stops me from sticking to 3.5.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 5, 2008)

I just discovered that James Wyatt apparently said "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." in "Races and Classes" (pg. 34).

   You play your game and I'll play mine. Traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people sounds loads more fun than combat.


----------



## Lackhand (Jun 5, 2008)

Full disclosure: I'm a f4nboy, and I have something like 5 PHBs and 2 giftsets on order (for my group and best friend and co-DM -- just call me Santa Claus  ). So I have a viewpoint all my own on the issue.

However, I have obtained several of these copies -- and I have a bunch of nitpicks.

My biggest complaint about the new edition is _execution_. I am perfectly fine with a lot of things that give others pause: healing surges are a much-needed addition, 'fighters with powers' are okay in my book, and wizards seem a-okay to me.

It feels like another round of playtests with the full docs -- a sort of alpha test period, in which leaks were inevitable and acceptable -- might have helped. The problems I'm complaining about aren't typographical, they're stylistic -- spell descriptions that describe the mechanics of the spell instead of the in-game effects, for instance.

What follows are not problems with the new edition, but complaints about tough decisions that fell the wrong way for me. I can see why they did them, but I don't appreciate the way they went. Other people's MMV, but I suspect if you currently play 3e, they'll bug you too. Hopefully they're not dealbreakers, though, because it's easy to see how there's no right answer here.

There's also a definite feeling of "not enoughness", which will, yes, drive splatbook sales. There aren't enough adventuring items, enough arcane character choice, enough fighter choice, and so on. There's enough to play, and to design mutually different characters {a completely rough guess would be on the order of (8 races) * (8 classes) * (3 or so mechanically interesting builds each -- probably an underestimate, but then not all races appeal to all people) = 180ish characters} but there's still not a wealth of options.

This does mean that splats will be full of awesomely useful stuff -- a good thing, as far as I'm concerned, since I'd have bought them anyway -- but I can _definitely_ see where it'd be a negative for someone else.

They paradoxically feel too crowded to me.

What's the difference between a Kensai and a Blademaster? In game? Out of game? They just seem to be very mutually toe-steppy. This is important, because the book is so cramped. There are a bunch of maneuvers that get VERY similar descriptions for different effects -- there are only so many ways to hit people, and I suspect game jargon will get used more often.
Upside, it's fairly rich, flavorful jargon -- a reaving strike _means_ something and will conjure the correct imagery, so that's okay.

Strikers, Leaders, Defenders, and Controllers (well, presumably  ) have a lot of power effect overlap (themes are different, and usually the actual powers are different too, but you can spot the theme between them fairly easily).
It's not exact, in that the powers are equivalent-but-slightly-different, but it's clear to see that they're analogues. 
During design, my guess would be that there were some striker proto powers that got differentiated as they were seeded to roles; the hereditary link is still visible and irks me, because it makes later design nonobvious (I'd rather extend the same power than duplicate the same implementation!) and because it devours up page count.

On the other hand, that page-count makes the book FAR better as a reference manual. When building your character, everything you need about 15th level powers is right there. Mine would make finding what your specific power did fairly complex, so I can see why the actual books spooled it down... ease of book use at the cost of additional content.

I'm also not sure how many power are so overlapped. Healing Word/Inspiring Word, obviously. I just haven't paid enough attention to catch the others, or it's a relatively rare problem. Shrug.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 5, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> There's enough to play, and to design mutually different characters {a completely rough guess would be on the order of (8 races) * (8 classes) * (3 or so mechanically interesting builds each -- probably an underestimate, but then not all races appeal to all people) = 180ish characters} but there's still not a wealth of options.




Just for fun, since I saw your post, I decided to check out the math.  Allowing for the following (not including any racial powers, class features or powers gained from feats)

8 Races
1 Class (specifically showing who many options for each class)
12 possible combos for At Will powers
4 for Encounters
4 for Dailies

gives you 1536 possible character designs for a 1st level character.  Yes not all of these are very synergistic, but you DO have options


----------



## hong (Jun 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> That is simply false.
> The rules for PCs and NPCs have been completely the same in my games for many years.
> 
> Granted, it was somewhat true in editions prior to 3E.




IOW, it was simply true.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Why did Mearls say it wouldn't appeal as much to world builders?



Ask him. He posts here. I can only speak for myself, and so far, 4e looks to present no significant difficulties for modeling my homebrew.



> 4E can not come close to providing the quality of model that I've been enjoying for years now.



See, I never though D&D provided a 'quality model'. I think the only simulationist elements D&D ever had were the ones people brought to it themselves. They didn't find them in the rules.  



> In 4e things are not designed to be a persistent element of the world.



What does persistent in the game world mean in the context of RPG play outside of 'the DM remembers some of what happened'? D&D isn't a weather model running on a lab computer.



> Some mechanics do a vastly superior job of modeling the way a world works than others.



I think some mechanics provide a better play experience that others, and I think some gaming groups are better at mutually creating the sense of a persistent, living world, which is largely independent of the rules.

But modeling a world? No rule set does that. Some just dampen the arguments between players better. 



> 4E is much better than Descent and much worse than 3E for this.



3e... a world modeling system in which inertia doesn't exist (see the Charging rules), aging invariably makes one smarter and wiser, broken limbs are impossible, limb loss is impossible, except in special cases involving magic cutlery, everyone has a lot of gold, illiteracy only exists among the very angry... need I do on?

All those things make perfect sense in the context of facilitating a certain kind of action-oriented FRPG play. But taken as the actual underpinnings for a simulated world and they look silly, as does the resulting world.

Again, D&D was never good at simulation. The real imperatives where always gameplay oriented. 4e is just more honest about that then its predecessors, as was 3e in it's time.



> That people are trying to act like there was no trade off for these "gains" is laughable to me.



Go ahead and laugh, and I'll go ahead and not have problems using 4e.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 5, 2008)

I don't have the rules yet, but based on all the previews and such, I have a few concerns.

There's a concept I tend to call "Trademark mining".  I use that term to refer to people trying to revive an older property--especially one that isn't used at all--and use it to either preserve their trademark rights or else to use a property--without doing any good research in why the property was successful.

There's also a similar concept called "executive ego".  It's actually keeping a trademark and forgetting why those properties are successful.  It leads to what I consider stupidity in brand management--why Hanna Barbara can't figure out to do anything with their dozens of characters (with the exception of Scooby Doo and using the characters as lame parodies of themselves in Adult Swim shows), why Marvel releases failed "reinterpretations" of minor characters, why VH1 abandons any form of music programing and Cartoon Network tries to say "why can't a cartoon be live action".  

I fear that with the new management regime Wizards has undertaken some of those two big mistakes.  I believe they think D&D at it's core is just a trademark they can repurpose for their own needs or the fads.  

The key differences I saw between the 3e and 4e approach was this.  I got the sense that Peter, Ryan, and the trilogy of designers worked hard to consider what D&D meant to the fans.  They were willing to take the game into the future but also tried to respect the past.  Look at how Peter worked hard to rebuild bridges with the creators--inviting Gary and Dave to GenCon, working with the fans, doing research, etc.  There was also a pent-up desire for a new edition, and there was a bad sense from D&D's near death in the 90's.  I remember actually clarifying some things on Eric's old site as a playtester.  That was a far cry from the playtester blackout they seemed to have this time around.  

I get the sense that the design team added new things "whether we wanted them or not".  Was D&D successful in the market solely because it was first, or gained the most marketing and established dominance, or was it something more?  And will changing the game cause a slow decline in the core fans?  

Maybe this will be successful.  But this is the first edition of D&D I'm not very excited for.  I see a lot of people with not hatred but "eunni" towards it.  I can give you specifics from my perspective but it seems everybody else has nailed it.

I do predict one thing.  If sales aren't as good, expect the next edition of D&D to be a more "back to basics" approach.  You'll see people delving into the history of the game, looking at its legacy.  If what's happened with games like Traveller is any indication I could see the next designers going back to 1e or 2e or "Basic D&D" as a base and working from that.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 5, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I don't have the rules yet, but based on all the previews and such, I have a few concerns.
> 
> There's a concept I tend to call "Trademark mining".  I use that term to refer to people trying to revive an older property--especially one that isn't used at all--and use it to either preserve their trademark rights or else to use a property--without doing any good research in why the property was successful.
> 
> ...




You make some good points but I don't know enough about the WOTC/Hasbro relationship to say how much of what I dislike about 4E is the designers fault. Who is really calling the shots here? The designers are gamers but the Hasbro suits are not. If sales aren't good we may see D&D scapped altogether. For Hasbro its small beans so they might not even care.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 5, 2008)

Now that I've seen it I find it kind of funny....my players (and I) all really liked the Book of Nine Swords, now that we've seen the new edition, we're all pretty disappointed.  None of the group has any more desire to switch.

The complete nerfing of spellcaster classes, and reduction of the complexity of playing them to choosing which daily, encounter, or at will powers to use, combined with the sheer paucity of powers really hasn't impressed anyone.  I mean, if you're going to make it powers based, and restrict what "things" characters can do to certain abilities used per day or whatever, at least give a decent selection.  For many levels, there are almost no powers.  And they all feel very similar to each other.  A buffet with 30 different varieties of porridge is really just giving you a lot of porridge.  It's gonna be a boring buffet.  That's kind of how I feel about a lot of what I've seen.

The reduction of everything to just combat saddens me.  The spellcasters can't benefit from interesting non-combat spells anymore...unless they want to take 10+ minutes to cast them.

And what happened to the whole idea of race defining your character beyond level 1?  What happened to all the racial feats and abilities?  Races like Elf and Eladrin get....2 or 3 each?

I knew I had reservations about the new game, but my players were more eager.  And, I figured, I was just being resistant to change, and it would grow on me.  But my dislike has been growing, rather than shrinking.  I might rip out some elements to retrofit into 3.x, but I don't think I can play or run this game.

The fact that the game is blatantly incomplete is definitely not appreciated.  Core classes and abilities are missing...I know that supplements are part of the business, but I do expect that the core books should have the stuff that belongs in the core.

I'm not a big fan of the new multiplayer rules.  I was never a "dip" person.....my multiplayer characters tended to be more dedicated.  The new game doesn't facilitate that in the same way.  Maybe they plan on fixing that with dedicated multiclass archetypal classes.....but that should have been in the core.  That they haven't included it means that many people can't play the character they want, right off the bat.

The funny thing is that a lot of the ideas they brought into 4E were *good*...rituals, a la Relics & Rituals, were cool.  Race mattering beyond level 1, a la Dawnforge, was cool as well.  The Book of Nine Swords.  But it's like they took the core ideas, then reduced them to their simplest common denominators, ran everything through a filter to ensure that it was all completely balanced and super easy to use, and ended up with stale beer.

The *idea* of the Eladrin as a race.....kind of Faerie Lords is neat, and something I've wanted in the game for a while...but Bastion Press did it better when they called them Feorin.  
I'm sincerely disappointed.  I was really hoping my concerns were unfounded.  I figured that maybe I'd resist, and my players would get overjoyed by the game, and convince me to give it a try.......but none of us are interested in it now.  That, I wasn't expecting. 

Banshee


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jun 5, 2008)

Ok, let's do a list, then.  I'm sure most of this has been covered.

I'll start with the BIGGEST issue I have: It took everything wrong with 3.5, and made it WORSE!  In 3.5, unless you were a caster, you didn't really need a high stat in your primaries to do well.  Sure, you want it, but you want to be the quirky fighter with cha 16 and only str 12?  Sure!  At least you can still hit things.  Not so in 4E.  Because of the generic across-the-board upgrades of attacks and defenses, and utter lack of ways to improve against it, like with a feat for +1 attack, EVERY class needs to pump their stats just to compete.  If you start at level 1 with a str lower than 16, why are you even bothering making that fighter?  Do you LIKE only hitting 35% of the time?!  It's especially glaring with wizards.  There is literally no reason AT ALL to not make your int 18 (+2 from race as well) and kick your other 5 stats in the junk.  It gives you +to all attacks and damage, +AC, +reflex, what's the others give you?  Nothing that's worth dropping all that.  Paladins I've found nigh unplayable because it's such a waste, having to keep up wis and cha, which all add to the same things.  Similar for the eladrin race.  No matter what class, someone else does it better than them.

Ok, now for other things:

1) *The turd-stained return of DM fiat, yay!*  Most people liked having hard and fast rules for skill DCs, or how hard it is to break an object (which I don't think you can even do now), or lord help us all, tell us how hard it is to talk down the raging orc barbarian.  Those Diplomacy rules were bad, but at least there was some kind of baseline.  Now, you want to try and tumble?  Well, it's DC 15....unless the DM decides not!  No more set situational increases, no.  Who wants that?  Want to barter for an item?  I'm sorry, you're not even aallowed to have a rough idea of the number you need to beat, cause the DM's just gonna bs it at whatever amount he wants.

2) *Help!  *cough* I'm choking on the vanilla!*  WotC made all classes the same progression.  Cause who likes individuality?  Why should the trained human weapons be better at hitting than the bookworms?  Why should hitting something with a sharp piece of metal hurt less than immolating it by fire?  All this system does is create the urgent need for every character to find a way to pull away from the pack.  Powergaming is more important than ever, if you want to improve your odds of wearing down the enemy before you go down.

3) *It might not be dead yet, hit it again!*  I can't believe the phobia of these designers.  LOOK at the larger weapons progression table!  1d12-->2d6?  1d8-->2d4? (notably only one table has this second progression, the other skips this step.  Curious, no?)  What is this crap?  They're practically the same!  3.5 even rules them as such.  And now two-handing gives...no benefit.  Unless it wasn't designed specifically for 2H (versatile weapons), then it does.  What?  Also, nothing like holding a second weapon just to weigh yourself down, since outside of one class, it does nothing for you.  At all.  well, at least you have protection if one gets disarmed or sundered.  Oh wait, that can't be done any more.  Apparantly that tactic's just too complex.

4) *I get punched for a living.  You?*  I tried playing a Fighter, with shield, as 2H was clearly...worthless. Little did I realize, the role of the defender isn't the badass lockdown crusader who keeps foes at bay and gives it as good as he takes it of 3E, as it's advertised.  Yes, it gets powers to keep foes on itself.  Unfortunately, the second half of the equation is missing.  Does WotC actually believe people are going to enjoy getting the crap kicked out of them while the rangers and warlocks get to do all the fun stuff and rack up kills?  The CLERIC was doing equal damage as me...AND healing at the same time (healing strike)!  The Wizard was doing the same as me, at range with multitarget!  Boy, I wish I had an alternative to attacking AC defense like most other classes do...

5) *What's that RP next to the G stand for again?*  Every.  Single.  Class.  Every one, they have one major thing in common.  Guess what it is?  They're all defined solely for their combat role.  Not one mention for out of combat.  It's mentioned that there is a period between combats where PCs aren't eating, sleeping, or defecating, they just...like to keep it their little secret, I guess.

6) *Nothing's so cool when everyone can do it*  To go back to earlier complaints, the fact that everyone's adding 1/2 HD to skill checks is just a disgrace.  The only difference between a trained and untrained character is 5 points, ever.  No "expert" who maxed stealth to 18 ranks and a "novice" who stopped short at 12, cause it's enough to beat a commoner's spot from range reliably.  Everyone's the same.  There isn't even synergy anymore.  Alot of skills that are almost always opposed become nigh pointless to bother with.  Sticking with the Stealth example, when against an equal level foe, even if they're untrained, they're within 5 points of you, really.  What are your chances not one of them will beat your roll?  Cause if just one does...  Course, now the only penalty they possibly take to spot is -2, if you're REALLY far away, so that helps....

7) *Come on, run!  Please?*  This just deserves its own spot.  The intimidate skill, oh how it's been nerfed mangled.  If you use it in combat, you're automatically taking a -10 cause they're hostile.  Right...  But if I just walk into a shop and start yelling randomly, it's all cool? This...ugh.  You can END A BATTLE with a single Intimidate check, as it can affect EVERY enemy that can see you and hear you, causing them to SURRENDER.  What's the problem, you ask?  In 3E, the concept would be, increase the DC to do greater things.  This way, you could try to maybe Tumble at DC 100 to take no falling damage, but if you were fine just taking 10 ft off, you didn't have to beat DC 100.  In 4E bizzaro world, it's all scaled based on the ultimate use, with the exact same DC, even if you're just trying to intimidate one guy, beaten to one hp, and grappled by 5 guys.  With a dagger over his family jewels.  HORRIBLE design logic.

8) *It's the gaming equivalent of a padded cell*  Everything's been dumbed down to such a ridiculous degree.  Every bit of precision of 3E was just thrown out. Whatever the effect, it's always a 10 on a d20 to end it, barring bonuses/penalties.  Any utility spell that left room for creative thought and application has been replaced by daily utility spells with extremely strict parameters and very short durations.  There is no more "101 ways to pwn with Minor Image."  We saw towards the end of 3E the banning and errata on such "trouble" abilities that let the caster have too much freedom.  After all, freedom's scary.  The players might actually surprise the DM with a creative tactic out of the blue.  Heaven forbid.

9) *Dude, easy with that sword.  Its just a game.*  The amount of metagame thinking going on in 4E is disgusting.  No longer are the players just another batch of people in a giant sea of who knows what.  Now they know they're special and great right from the start.  They're "Heroic" tier, afterall.  Even before they've actually done anything.

10) *Would you ever believe the most broken houserule spell ever created would be something that does 1 point of damage to all creatures in a 50 ft radius?*  Ah, minions.  The other part of that last point that just deserved its own heading...  It basically tells the players to identify the "minions" quickly, lest they "waste" their daily single-hit power on one of them.  These guys seem to exist solely to make the Wizard necessary.  If they didn't exist, and every enemy had substantial hit points, there'd be no need for spells that do 1d6 +int to an area.  You'd just have the strikers pick foes off one at a time, for much more efficient damage output.

Quick issues: Powers sometimes reverse-scale (higher levels are weaker); have to wait till level 11 to really multiclass; race-class roles are even more pigeon-holed than in 3E; the primary reason to play a dragonborn is to look like a dragon...; the alignment system is broken and nonsensical (Corellon's even "unaligned" now); the remaining existence of spell books is such a blatant sacred cow survivor it's like a neon orange sign in the forest; feats manage to be dull, severely limited in both power and amount available to any given class, incredibly weak, and have prereqs that make many unatainable for those who would actually want them...all at once!; I see no mechanical reason to never offer new, improved at-wills, ever, over the course of 30 levels; there is NO path towards fighting unarmed at all.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> In 4e things are not designed to be a persistent element of the world.




In favor of persistent worlds eh?  I'm sorry Bryon, but that's MMOspeak, I'm going to have to ask for you to turn in your anti-4E press badge now *grin*


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 5, 2008)

cwhs01 said:
			
		

> Wizards are no longer the undisputed masters of magic and their spells suck more now than in any other edition... why is this a bad thing? Why is getting wizards in line with the other classes bad?




It's not that wizards suck because they're no longer masters in the game or something.  I never really had that problem in my game....they were always very vulnerable to any fighter or rogue in the game.

Fireball can be used *once* a day.

Meteor Swarm, a lvl 29 spell, does on average about 28 dmg on a failed save....against a lvl 29 or 30 character, that's not much at all.  And it can be used *once* a day.

All of the wizard powers are basically blasting spells now.  If you want to do anything except blow stuff up, you have to use rituals which take forever to cast, and are available to any character.  The element of choice and planning, and doing things other than, well, blowing stuff up, has been taken away.

And forget about changing your spells each morning, to try something new.  It's more like the sorcerer model...unless you retrain, you're basically stuck with your choice afterwards.

Animal companions are gone.  Polymorph is gone.  Druids, bards, monks, barbarians, and sorcerers are all gone.

Vastly reduced weapon and equipment list.

Overall, far less choice than in 3E.  Frankly I had no idea that so much of the PHB was dominated by the classes.

Given that Paizo is supposed to be the smaller company, whereas WotC is the official maker of D&D, I didn't expect Pathfinder to look more professional than the new edition of D&D, but after opening the alpha file and looking at it again, that's exactly the impression I get.

I don't know what to say....except what I said in an earlier post....that I'm very disappointed.  I've played all 3 editions, saw 4E at one of my players' homes, and now that I've seen it, it's the first time I don't even *want* the new edition as soon as it's available.  It almost feels like I'd be wasting my money.  It's kind of selfish, but I'm glad he got it rather than me...I'm fairly happy that I didn't preorder, at this point.  I had been planning on going to the shop immediately after work on release day, browsing the books, and picking them up....but I don't think that's happening now.

Hopefully people have fun with it.  But I kind of suspect there's going to be a fair group of people who preordered the game who are going to be rather disappointed, once the initial glee of reading the new edition wears off.  As a consumer, it's not for me.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> And 4E so far doesn't fail to be D&D for me. But it might very well fail for you or el-remmen at being D&D.
> 
> (And why am I posting this in the "anti 4E" thread? Because I want to force everyone to accept and admit that his understanding of D&D is not the only true form, damn it!  )




I think this is a fair statement.  From what I've seen at this point, I'm pretty sure it's not for me.  I've generally been able to find at least some content in most D&D books that I feel interested in.....particularly core rulebooks.....but the new one doesn't seem to be for me...or my players.

Some other people will obviously differ, and great for them.  From a purely selfish standpoint, I wish it was a game that interested me.

Banshee


----------



## Treebore (Jun 5, 2008)

You know what I think 4E's real problem is? That 3E is not a "bad game". It has maybe 8 relatively big problems, and maybe 20 minor things needing a little fix here and there?

Which I strongly believe Pathfinder will prove, in spades.

I hope the Paizo crew delivers like they have been since Dragon and Dungeon were taken away from them. IF they do the "fixed" 3E PAthfinder is going to blow 4E out of the water. If Paizo actually makes 3E significantly easier to DM I could even be enticed back to DMing it. Which is a very doable goal. I have figured out a lot of ways, which are still backwards compatible to "official" 3E,  just putting my Castles and Crusades house rules together.

4E is all shiny and new, but it has a 3 cylinder engine under the hood, with cheap extra's, goes no where fast, and still gets only 12 MPG.

I am glad 4E has pre sold so well. I also think Pathfinders schedule of release is about perfect. By the time the final version is released there will be a very significant number of unhappy D&D players looking for a good solid game being supported by a company doing cool stuff.

Fortunately they will be in luck. They will have Paizo, Green Ronin, Troll Lords, and others ready to deliver.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 5, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> You know what I think 4E's real problem is? That 3E is not a "bad game". It has maybe 8 relatively big problems, and maybe 20 minor things needing a little fix here and there?
> 
> Which I strongly believe Pathfinder will prove, in spades.
> 
> ...




Is Green Ronin continuing to support 3.x and/or True20?  The only company I know made an announcement was Paizo....but I also haven't been following the boards as much lately.

You could be right.  Hopefully sufficient numbers of people are willing to wait until 2009 to make Pathfinder viable.....I know several of my players have commented that the Paizo fixes seem to address several of the questions/concerns they had about 3E.  If Pathfinder can make it easier to plan encounters etc. it looks like it's going to be an awesome game.

Banshee


----------



## Treebore (Jun 5, 2008)

No announcements from GR, but I have now doubt they will be keeping True20 and Mutants and Masterminds going. Thats enough for me.


----------



## Turanil (Jun 5, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Is Green Ronin continuing to support 3.x and/or True20?



They said so on their own website. M&M and True20 are rather successful it seems, with a lot of stuff already published for it. On the other hand, seeing the disaster 4e seems to be (StreamOfTheSky's post had my jaw drop, flabbergasted...), I guess that Green Ronin will probably carefully remain away from it. Maybe some people at Paizo had insights into what was designed with the new edition, and that it greatly enticed them into doing their own version of advanced 3.5. 

Now I am really curious to know how 4e will fare on the long run. We will see. What I am looking forward, 6 months ahead of now, is to read about people who will actually have played the new edition a lot. I will be eager to read about people who will actually enjoy that kind of rules. To me, 4e really sounds like a minis board game, a type of game I definitely do not enjoy, but to each his own of course.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 5, 2008)

*Remember everyone - this is a thread for those who want to rant about 4e. It isn't a thread which is inviting rebuttal's to those rants, so don't do it.

Thanks*


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb (Jun 5, 2008)

I ran the 4e Quick-Start rules in _Keep On The Shadowfell_ , and I didn't like it. I was painfully aware of the mechanics every minute of the game. An account of my experience is written _here_:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10663


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Jun 5, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> 3. Loss of extensive spell lists for casters.  Wizards seem to have gone from hundreds upon hundreds of spell options to dozens.  Clerics now operate without spells.  I like D&D spellcasters as they are in 3.5.




PLEASE!!!  That was my key gripe about 3.X Edition.  In 2E I had all of the Wizards and Priests spell compendiums.  The number of spells that 2E had totally blew away 3.X.  I loved that the compendiums has spells that were helpful in the campaign sense but not necessarily in combat.  Example: Bigby's Construction Crew.  I had a wizard that supported himself during downtime by casting Bigby's Construction Crew for various building projects in the town he resided in.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 5, 2008)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> PLEASE!!!  That was my key gripe about 3.X Edition.  In 2E I had all of the Wizards and Priests spell compendiums.  The number of spells that 2E had totally blew away 3.X.  I loved that the compendiums has spells that were helpful in the campaign sense but not necessarily in combat.  Example: Bigby's Construction Crew.  I had a wizard that supported himself during downtime by casting Bigby's Construction Crew for various building projects in the town he resided in.




I think what DaveMage was trying to point out is that 3.X _and earlier_ editions offered far more caster options than 4E and he is correct. In any of those editions adding available spells was really easy. With 4E adding a "spell" is quite a chore to make sure that its a proper part of this balanced tasteless breakfast.


----------



## Gallo22 (Jun 5, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> If the rule doesn't work for you that's one thing. But please don't insult those of us who like the idea by mockingly calling it Regeneration. A well-reasoned statement that you believe characters are given too many healing surges per day for your tastes is much preferred over mockery.





He's not insulting you in any way.  Please stop trolling this thread!  These are out opinions, no where in this thread does it say 4th Edition players are wrong with liking 4th ed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2008)

I left my rant in another thread:  http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4271023&postcount=81

Largely covers my thoughts about 4e.

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I think what DaveMage was trying to point out is that 3.X _and earlier_ editions offered far more caster options than 4E and he is correct. In any of those editions adding available spells was really easy. With 4E adding a "spell" is quite a chore to make sure that its a proper part of this balanced tasteless breakfast.



Well, except for 3.x Sorcers and Bards, off course.

Edit: Or did I misunderstand you, and you're talking about creating new spells? In that case, well... If you wanted to add something balanced in 3E, it was not easier or harder then it was in 4E. If you don't care about balance, well.. it's easy in both editions, too...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, except for 3.x Sorcers and Bards, off course.
> 
> Edit: Or did I misunderstand you, and you're talking about creating new spells? In that case, well... If you wanted to add something balanced in 3E, it was not easier or harder then it was in 4E. If you don't care about balance, well.. it's easy in both editions, too...




I was talking about simply expanding the available spells list. I do think its harder to add balanced spells in 4E. Its also harder to add balanced spells in 3.X compared to any earlier edition, it just a matter of degree. The more tightly knit the rules are, the easier it is to introduce "game breaking" elements.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 5, 2008)

What I hate about 4E:

Having people walk up to me and explain to me why 4E sucks without having even heard anything about it.

(I'm not slamming those in this thread, I spend a lot of time at the game shop, and I've had people walk up and explain to me why 4E sucks, and it's apparent they have NO IDEA what they are talking about.  And it drives me nuts.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I was talking about simply expanding the available spells list. I do think its harder to add balanced spells in 4E. Its also harder to add balanced spells in 3.X compared to any earlier edition, it just a matter of degree. The more tightly knit the rules are, the easier it is to introduce "game breaking" elements.



I don't think it's really that hard to create a balanced power in 4E. There are enough samples and enough guidelines to lead you through the right mix. But that is mostly because 2/3rd of the powers (in contrast to the rituals) are related to dealing damage or special effects on targets.

What's a lot more difficult in all editions is to figure out when it's balanced to give the PCs something like Scry, Fly or Teleport, Speak with Dead or any other spell or power that is not focused on dispatching enemies. 

Think about it - Speak with Dead? It could be level 1 spell, or a level 5 spell, or an epic level spell. They don't affect the combats you fight, but the "feel" of your campaign...


----------



## Turanil (Jun 5, 2008)

Sacrificial Lamb said:
			
		

> I ran the 4e Quick-Start rules in _Keep On The Shadowfell_ , and I didn't like it. I was painfully aware of the mechanics every minute of the game. An account of my experience is written _here_:
> 
> http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10663



The more I read, the more I am stunned. Well, at least as I want to compare it to previous editions of D&D. Maybe if it was a new game, I would just ignore it. However, 90 minutes to resolve a fight between four 1st level PCs and eight kobolds?!? Three kobolds have dozens of hp and five of them have 1 hp each? Fighters inflicting damage even though they don't hit, yet not on minions? More book-keeping and battlemat use than ever? Well, the more I read about it, the more it seems 4e is like an enormous hoax or April's fool...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Think about it - Speak with Dead? It could be level 1 spell, or a level 5 spell, or an epic level spell. They don't affect the combats you fight, but the "feel" of your campaign...




Yeah its hard to see the value of taking prisoners with this around   
We ruled that it only worked provided the soul wanted to communicate.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jun 5, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Just for fun, since I saw your post, I decided to check out the math.  Allowing for the following (not including any racial powers, class features or powers gained from feats)
> 
> 8 Races
> 1 Class (specifically showing who many options for each class)
> ...



Mathematical nitpick: 4 choose 2 is 6, not 12.  In other words, taking Cleave and Reaping Strike is the same as taking Reaping Strike and Cleave.  So for any given class, you have 768 possible choices of races and first-level powers.

But the number of possible "character designs" for a given class is probably larger, since you may also choose feats (and, of course, ability scores).

Of course, in practice, the more relevant but harder to quantify property is the degree to which these designs play differently.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I don't like it because I am a world builder.
> 
> I want a game that is about making a cool world and then using that world to build cool characters in it.  4E, to me, is exactly the opposite.  4E is about building the characters and skewing the rest of the world to fit those characters.
> 
> ...



And with every fiber of my being, I think you're wrong.  The rules of D&D should be about the table experience, nothing else.  World-building  should be the province of frustrated fanfic writers and SimCity players.


----------



## Turanil (Jun 5, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> And with every fiber of my being, I think you're wrong.  The rules of D&D should be about the table experience, nothing else.  World-building  should be the province of frustrated fanfic writers and SimCity players.



And with every fiber of my being, I agree with BryonD. Your point of view is just one point of view among others, that I do not share, although I can see its rationale if you are someone who prefers minis games. Insulting other posters is not welcome anyway, plus you are wrong with this last statement (something that I know with every fiber of my being of course...).

Finally, I invite you to read post #108...


----------



## gonesailing (Jun 5, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> And with every fiber of my being, I think you're wrong.  The rules of D&D should be about the table experience, nothing else.  World-building  should be the province of frustrated fanfic writers and SimCity players.




Ahem...As I read it this thread is FOR the hate, not to defend your own point of view.  'Sides World Building is F.U.N. Fun.

Anyway, I dislike that the change of direction that 4th Edition represents has caused a hopefully temporary rift in the community on this and other forums I lurk on.


----------



## Felix (Jun 5, 2008)

I forget where I read it, but I had heard that 4e was going to implement a mechanic whereby your race would give you more abilities as you level up, making your choice of race much more relevant at high levels, and making an orc fighter distinct from a similarly built dwarf fighter.

But it turned out not to be the case. And that was the *one* mechanic I was keen on seeing.

And then they went and kicked Vancian magic right in the junk. 4e may be a pretty, well-executed kick in the junk with the best of intentions, but I'm still walking funny.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 5, 2008)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> He's not insulting you in any way.  Please stop trolling this thread!  These are out opinions, no where in this thread does it say 4th Edition players are wrong with liking 4th ed.




Bringing up something from several pages ago after they've been booted from the thread strikes me as being particularly silly, not to mention bad form.

It also flies in the face of my most recent instructions about this thread. Don't do it.


----------



## sckeener (Jun 5, 2008)

gonesailing said:
			
		

> I dislike that the change of direction that 4th Edition represents has caused a hopefully temporary rift in the community on this and other forums I lurk on.




agreed.  I'm tired of all the posture for and against 4e.  I'm hoping it'll settle down.  

<back to the OP>

What I don't like about 4e...

it'll be the vista of D&D - change for change
 great wheel toast
 demons being elementals
 summoning and illusions coming later
 monsters and pcs being different...makes it harder for DMs that allow players to play monsters.  
 the art work....I've seen some that are good...but the tiefling art...come on...why are they not extinct with those horns?  I could see the 'LG' dwarf in Goblins killing all of them just because they might be evil.
 how much change would have to happen to homebrewed settings to support 4e.   This is a big one for me since there is one world I've been playing in for 21 years..and there are others in the game who've been playing in it for longer.  We've managed to make the change for each edition...but 4e sounds like a different beast.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 5, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> And with every fiber of my being, I think you're wrong.  The rules of D&D should be about the table experience, nothing else.  World-building  should be the province of frustrated fanfic writers and SimCity players.




I've given two warnings, and I'm losing some patience here.

Banned for 3 days.


----------



## Creeping Death (Jun 5, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> I forget where I read it, but I had heard that 4e was going to implement a mechanic whereby your race would give you more abilities as you level up, making your choice of race much more relevant at high levels, and making an orc fighter distinct from a similarly built dwarf fighter.
> 
> But it turned out not to be the case. And that was the *one* mechanic I was keen on seeing.




I remember this as well and was looking forward to it.  I remember that race was going to make a difference for all classes so that an orc wizard was different than a human wizard which would be different than a dwarven wizard, etc. etc.

That's too bad it's not in there.  It's just another reason for me to not buy the books.  I'm going to have to think about how to do this for 3.xe.  Maybe I'll continue to use racial substitution levels or something like that.


----------



## Felix (Jun 5, 2008)

Creeping Death said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to think about how to do this for 3.xe.  Maybe I'll continue to use racial substitution levels or something like that.



I think the way to do it is give a benefit every 4 levels or so. Nothing too major, and they'd have to be broad enough to appeal to members of every class. Somehow make a higher level dwarf, well, *more* dwarfy.

Perhaps it could reside in the purview of how NPCs react initially?

With 8 PHB races and 11 classes that would find different things appealing, I can see how this mechanic could quickly bog down a pnp rpg for relatively little benefit. But it's still a cool idea.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 5, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> What I hate about 4E:
> 
> Having people walk up to me and explain to me why 4E sucks without having even heard anything about it.
> 
> (I'm not slamming those in this thread, I spend a lot of time at the game shop, and I've had people walk up and explain to me why 4E sucks, and it's apparent they have NO IDEA what they are talking about.  And it drives me nuts.)




And if they've read the rules, and still don't like it?

I'm not trying to start an argument.  Actually, I had a similar discussion with my players.  Based on stuff I was reading on EN World, and previews by WotC and stuff, I expressed concerns.  Two of my players said "it actually sounds cool......we like Book of Nine Swords, and everyone gets options like that now"...they brought up that maybe my concerns were because I lacked context in that I didn't have access to the books themselves.  Then one of them got the books early, and the first reaction was "cool".....so we went to his place.  But by the time everyone had gone through them, reactions had gone decidedly cold, and the group as a whole changed their minds about it, and that we're no longer so hot to change.  Discussions changed to how much stuff we still have to do in 3.x.

It seems like lots of people have opinions one way or the other that are sometimes pretty strong.  But at least on these boards, naysayers have been criticized as forming opinions based on incomplete information.  I remember when 3.0 came out, based on previews, I was pretty interested, but concerned about multiclassing.  It took three years of play for WotC to realize multiclassing was flawed, in the same manner I knew based on their previews.  I kind of see this the same way.....I think that once the "newness" wears off, many players might not be *as* satisfied with it.

Someone upthread pointed out...maybe part of the problem is that at the end of the day, 3.x really wasn't a bad system.  At this point, refinements would tend to be minor.  If you blow everything up to build a new system, you better hope you get it right, because it's really easy to get it wrong if you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If lots of people love it, great.  I hope they have fun.  I just don't think it's really a game tailored to my interests anymore.  It feels a little like SAGA Dragonlance, in terms of the overall situation.  That was still ostensibly Dragonlance, but it didn't feel the same as it did under D&D rules.  

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 5, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> And with every fiber of my being, I think you're wrong.  The rules of D&D should be about the table experience, nothing else.  World-building  should be the province of frustrated fanfic writers and SimCity players.




I've never enjoyed campaigns where the DM *didn't* care about that stuff, and where it isn't included.  Maybe I'm not the "stereotyped" D&D player that WotC seems to be aiming for, but I get bored with dungeon crawls and adventures that aren't rooted in an overall world that has interesting stuff going on all around us.  I've never lasted in games like that more than a few sessions.  But the DM who's got all these political machinations in the background, and takes the trouble to create player aids like false treasure maps he bakes in the oven and stuff like that?  Those kind of DM's are awesome.

All in my opinion.

Maybe I'm just not the kind of player or DM that WotC wants anymore.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 5, 2008)

Creeping Death said:
			
		

> I remember this as well and was looking forward to it.  I remember that race was going to make a difference for all classes so that an orc wizard was different than a human wizard which would be different than a dwarven wizard, etc. etc.
> 
> That's too bad it's not in there.  It's just another reason for me to not buy the books.  I'm going to have to think about how to do this for 3.xe.  Maybe I'll continue to use racial substitution levels or something like that.




That's one of the things I was eager to see in 4E as well.  It was one of the things keeping me interested.

As far as I can see, it's no longer there.  Each race has a few race-specific feats.  But they're really not that great.  Like the Eladrin are supposed to be the mystical, terrible faerie lords, right? Their racial feats give them +2 to hit with longswords, and the other gives I think an AC bonus in the round they do their dimension step.  It's very flavourless, and not very creative (to me).  And really, does it make them *that* different than, say, a dwarf?  Some races, I think, get more....like Dragonborn.

I was very disappointed.  I kept looking through the book trying to find where all the racial abilities and things that make race matter all the way to 20 were hiding, and just couldn't find them.  Maybe my friend's book has a misprint?  But given others are mentioning similar findings, it doesn't sound like it.  I'm not sure if it was something that was cut following playtesting, for space considerations (to be re-introduced with racial splatbooks), or if they just committed the sin over over-promising and under-delivering.  I don't know.

Maybe it will all come out in splat  books.  Maybe the game is really just incomplete, and in another 2 or 3 years, once it's been developed through additional material, it'll seem more interesting to get into.  I just feel that it's not nearly there yet.

Banshee


----------



## Zil (Jun 5, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> I just discovered that James Wyatt apparently said "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." in "Races and Classes" (pg. 34).
> 
> You play your game and I'll play mine. Traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people sounds loads more fun than combat.



He really said this?   That makes me more than just a little bit sad and disappointed in the 4E design team.  It certainly explains some things though.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 5, 2008)

Creeping Death said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to think about how to do this for 3.xe.  Maybe I'll continue to use racial substitution levels or something like that.




I wonder how unbalanced things would be if one used the racial substitutions as "add ons" vs. "substitutions".

I may read up on that a bit tonight...

Edit - I think the Pathfinder Alpha has benefits for races as they reach certain levels, but I may be misremembering.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jun 5, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I wonder how unbalanced things would be if one used the racial substitutions as "add ons" vs. "substitutions".
> 
> I may read up on that a bit tonight...
> 
> Edit - I think the Pathfinder Alpha has benefits for races as they reach certain levels, but I may be misremembering.




They don't, but I had thought that if you give feats every odd level then that leaves 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level open to give characters things that are not dependent on class.  I'm working on using the racial levels mixed with some of the continuing racial abilities from the Paizo Dark Sun to give characters racial benefits (I can also use at least the human evolved levels from Arcana Evolved for this purpose).


----------



## Creeping Death (Jun 5, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I wonder how unbalanced things would be if one used the racial substitutions as "add ons" vs. "substitutions".
> 
> I may read up on that a bit tonight...
> 
> Edit - I think the Pathfinder Alpha has benefits for races as they reach certain levels, but I may be misremembering.




Arcana evolved has racial levels and evolved levels that seem to work well.

I would like to see something for weapons so that a sword and shield fighter is different than a sword a axe fighter.  Like maybe the axe fighter can attampt to destroy his opponents shield where as the sword fighter has different moves that are available.

This reminds me of one more thing about 4e.  It seems that the core books (from what I hear, haven't seen them yet) are incomplete.  Like you are supposed to buy those and several supplements before you can really expand and play.

I know there are a lot of groups that play core only and get lots of variation in character and challenges.  Is that possible with 4e core?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 5, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> He really said this?   That makes me more than just a little bit sad and disappointed in the 4E design team.  It certainly explains some things though.




Now let's just take a step back here for a moment. It's true that you can do virtually anything with a refereed RPG as long as the players and GM are willing to do it, but I don't think it's untrue that games have a primary focus and that they should, above all, make sure they handle that primary focus well.

Feng Shui is about cinematic action
Vampire is about angsty bloodsucking
Cyberpunk 2020 is about getting along in a capitalist-tech dystopia
Mutants and Masterminds is about superhero action

For some games, there are multiple identities - 
Traveller is a mix of D&D in space and mercenary merchants

D&D may be able to support traipsing through faerie worlds and meeting the little people... but that's a bit of an outlier along its path. D&D really has been more about slaying monsters and exploring old ruins than playing _A Midsummer Night's Dream_. So, I think James's statement is reasonably fair.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jun 5, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> D&D may be able to support traipsing through faerie worlds and meeting the little people... but that's a bit of an outlier along its path. D&D really has been more about slaying monsters and exploring old ruins than playing _A Midsummer Night's Dream_. So, I think James's statement is reasonably fair.



I'm sorry, but your statement is far too level-headed and reasonable for me to appreciate. Such calm, rational arguments have no place in this thread.

Begone, I say. Begone!


----------



## BryonD (Jun 5, 2008)

nevermind, edited out cause I didn't see the ban before.


----------



## Psion (Jun 5, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> D&D may be able to support traipsing through faerie worlds and meeting the little people... but that's a bit of an outlier along its path. D&D really has been more about slaying monsters and exploring old ruins than playing _A Midsummer Night's Dream_. So, I think James's statement is reasonably fair.




Oh, I don't think I can cop that. On the surface this statement sounds reasonable... and I _wouldn't_ use the game for a midsummer night's dream. But at the same time, I wouldn't hesitate to include the intricacies of faerie magic and politics in a game. And the alternative James provides--kill things and take their stuff--seems to set forth as creatively limited and a prescription for a game I wouldn't want to run or play it.

And to think... back in 3e when he described his OA game, I was enthralled by the detail and flavor he put into the game, with cool little tidbits from folklore. This doesn't sound like the James Wyatt we see quoted here.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 5, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> And to think... back in 3e when he described his OA game, I was enthralled by the detail and flavor he put into the game, with cool little tidbits from folklore. This doesn't sound like the James Wyatt we see quoted here.



Yeah, but duh....,  that was BEFORE WotC went back in their secret room and flipped the 3E switch to "suck".  And the switch was, of course, retroactive.    


Seriously, he was speaking to and designing for completely different target groups.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Seriously, he was speaking to and designing for completely different target groups.




Or he, like most people, actually changed over the course of seven years.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 5, 2008)

Creeping Death said:
			
		

> I remember this as well and was looking forward to it.  I remember that race was going to make a difference for all classes so that an orc wizard was different than a human wizard which would be different than a dwarven wizard, etc. etc.
> 
> That's too bad it's not in there.  It's just another reason for me to not buy the books.  I'm going to have to think about how to do this for 3.xe.  Maybe I'll continue to use racial substitution levels or something like that.



I think it's pretty clear what their initial plans where. 1st level would have Racial Powers, Paragon Paragon Paths, and Epic would have Epic Destinies. 

But apparently, they figured it didn't work out as well as they hoped. I remember a designer comment that said they figured that due to the limits to level 1-10, race still lost its meaning after 10th level. Maybe this was just a designer worry, or it was common playtest feedback (we might never know.) So, we now have racial feats, some becoming available at paragon or epic tier. There should probably be more of them. I think it wouldn't hurt if there were also Racial Paragon Path (aka Diamond Throne Racial Levels) or Racial Powers that you could take via multiclassing.

For 3E, I prefer the idea of using racial abilities advancing over all levels, parallel to all other development. Racial levels always force to give you up abilities in the class you actually want to have, and substitution levels are limited to a few classes.

So, at 5, 10th, 15th and 20th level, your race (or maybe your dragonmark, or your bloodline, depending on setting and preferences) could grant another ability. Maybe something like this:
Elf (5th): Fey Step - Dimension Door once per day; +1 to Dex or Int
Elf (10th): Elven Lore - Reroll one Knowledge Check per day, and attempt any Knowledge Check as if trained: +1 to Int or Wis
Elf (15th): Elven Harmoy - Reroll one Balance, Concentration or Diplomacy Check or Will Save per day. +1 to Wis or Cha
Elf (20th): Elven Perfection - +1 to Dex, Wis, Cha and Int.
Racial feats could give extra uses of these abilities. 

Off course, this might be unbalanced and overpowered, but I think such a subsystem would work pretty well with something like Pathfinder, that is already changing the game balance.

/threadcap


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Seriously, he was speaking to and designing for completely different target groups.




He might also talked about the difference between using a game system and designing a game system.

You can use D&D to cover the political machinations of the Faerie. But the game system is hardly designed for it. 

There might be many reasons why that is the case, but my prefered one is:
It's less fun if you put hard rules on political machinations in the game. 

Or rather, it is a different kind of fun. It is the "gamist" fun that D&D combat provides. You don't really try to figure out the enemies secret desires and hidden agenda - you'd be rolling your "Discover Secret Agenda" attack against the opponents "Hidden Subtext" Defense, or something like that. I am sure that would be a lot of fun - but it's not the _role-playing_ game fun, it is the role-playing _game_ fun. 

So, D&D just provides a very low-level framework - it gives you skills (at least since 3E) to make a little of these, but the skills are vaguely enough defined so that you can spin a story around it without having to rely on game terms. Skill Challenges are a natural extension of this. You still roll to resolve the progress, but what actually happens is not found in the rules.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 5, 2008)

Achan hiArusa said:
			
		

> They don't, but I had thought that if you give feats every odd level then that leaves 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level open to give characters things that are not dependent on class.  I'm working on using the racial levels mixed with some of the continuing racial abilities from the Paizo Dark Sun to give characters racial benefits (I can also use at least the human evolved levels from Arcana Evolved for this purpose).




Yeah, I was confusing it was the sorcerer bloodlines, where you do get level-dependent benefits.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> He might also talked about the difference between using a game system and designing a game system.



I think that is a pretty radical interpretation.
I think the difference is exactly what it appears on its face and is reflected in a wide range of comments from multiple designers.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Or he, like most people, actually changed over the course of seven years.



Well, I have no way of knowing if he himself has changed preference from the richness of 3E OA to the board game approach he has endorsed here or not.  I suppose it may be possibly.

However, there is nothing remotely "or" about that.  All that would be is one possible explanation for why.  It is in no way an alternative.


----------



## Psion (Jun 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> He might also talked about the difference between using a game system and designing a game system.
> 
> You can use D&D to cover the political machinations of the Faerie. But the game system is hardly designed for it.




It's not a game _about_ fey politics, and I don't necessarily think extensive mechanics for such in the game is necessary. This is the sort of thing I like to incorporate as spice in a game.

To that end, I don't see 3e/4e as especially different on this score.


----------



## JDragon (Jun 6, 2008)

First a quick thanks to the Mod's for keeping this thread under control and open vs just closing it.


What I don't care for in 4e....

Well most of its been said in the last 10 pages, and most of it much better than I probably can.

So I'm just going to leave it that, D&D 4e to ME is not an improvement on the previous edition.  As said before it seems to be change for change and a change for $$$$, not a whole lot else.

So I plan to MAYBE play the test session or two my group had planned to do, but will do that by using someone else's books, because I plan to return the book I had ordered when I had some hope for the new system. (Which should be getting to my house about the time I get home tonight from B&N) Thats assuming I can keep my dislike in control enough to not make the sessions suck for everyone else at the table.

That is after we finish our Battletech campaign that we started when the announcement of 4e killed almost all my interest in D&D.

I expect that we will continue with 3.x and continue to embrace the improvements Paizo is making.

JD


----------



## Roland55 (Jun 6, 2008)

I'm hoping that I just need more play-time.

This new edition is supposed to be all about two things:  "balance" and "fun."

I definitely see the extreme emphasis placed on balance.  It's there in spades.

I'm not having the "fun" yet.  Which really surprises me -- I've never had this issue with any other edition of the game.  And I've played them all.  I'm even having the "incomplete edition" issue someone else (Remathilis?) has already commented on.

Too soon to be sure, I think.  I've only played about 4 sessions.  I'll keep at it, show some persistence, and see what happens.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jun 6, 2008)

I think that regardless of whether or not you like the intent of the design team on 4e, it's really helpful to know those intentions. If nothing else, it lets you know what you'd want to change if you want to play the game with different priorities than the designers intended.

It's a game system that models the outcomes of adventure fiction-style exploits in a fictional world -- it doesn't attempt to model that fictional world directly. Whether or not you like that they do that or not, it's certainly better to know it than not, right? 

I'll be really curious to see what they do with the Forgotten Realms supplements, since when you're talking about a preestablished fictional world they may have to do a lot more in terms of "This is how X actually looks in the world" as well as having game mechanics for it.


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb (Jun 6, 2008)

Turanil said:
			
		

> The more I read, the more I am stunned. Well, at least as I want to compare it to previous editions of D&D. Maybe if it was a new game, I would just ignore it. However, 90 minutes to resolve a fight between four 1st level PCs and eight kobolds?!? Three kobolds have dozens of hp and five of them have 1 hp each? Fighters inflicting damage even though they don't hit, yet not on minions? More book-keeping and battlemat use than ever? Well, the more I read about it, the more it seems 4e is like an enormous hoax or April's fool...



It was an experience.  I was actually shocked at how much more cumbersome 4e is than 3e. There's a wide array of different powers running simultaneously, and most of them provide a bonus or a penalty, depending on you being adjacent to the right type of creature. To any who are in doubt, my experience is that 4e absolutely requires the battle grid and awareness of exect positioning, even moreso than 3e. I could houserule away Attacks of Opportunity in 3e, but you can't really do that in 4e. There are far too many powers that rely upon exact knowledge of every participant on the battlegrid. There is no "fog of war" in 4e.

Oh, and 4e also requires a ton of _bookkeeping_, even more than 3e (if that even sounds possible).

It's not the Opportunity Attacks that are so much the problem, but there are so many powers that only activate when you're adjacent to the proper creature. Our group tried to use dice as a replacement for miniatures, but we'd accidentally mistake one die for another, thus getting abilities like _marking_ and _Mob Attack_ mixed up.

To anyone else present, read the link to the thread I provided. Read the _entire_ thread, if you have the time. The experience was...painful. 

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10663


----------



## Henry (Jun 6, 2008)

Before you base your whole decision on this thread, Turanil, it might help to check into some of the positive experiences, too. There's quite a bit of pro and con going on, and a lot MORE of it over the next month, I'd imagine. But as with any edition, if 3e is currently "floating your boat", there's nothing positively life-changing that will come out of a switch.


----------



## mhensley (Jun 6, 2008)

4e turned me into a newt!


----------



## billd91 (Jun 6, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> And to think... back in 3e when he described his OA game, I was enthralled by the detail and flavor he put into the game, with cool little tidbits from folklore. This doesn't sound like the James Wyatt we see quoted here.




_*That*_ was when the core system for 3.0 was already in place and he was talking about a setting add-on. Now, he's talking about getting the core of the new game in place rather than the campaign add-on. I see a significant difference in the two topics. Since D&D is fundamentally more about killing horrible monsters (and taking their stuff while exploring trap-laden ruins), I can understand why that has to be the focus of the core rules, certainly moreso than visiting the wee people of the faerie realms. Once those are in place and robust, then it's time to push things out to the corners of the envelope.

You gotta wear different hats depending on what segment of the game you are designing. Each segment will have different design goals.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 6, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Since D&D is fundamentally more about killing horrible monsters (and taking their stuff while exploring trap-laden ruins), I can understand why that has to be the focus of the core rules, certainly moreso than visiting the wee people of the faerie realms.





_*fundamentally?!?*_  Not sure I agree with you here.

With 4e that may be so.  With prior editions, not necessarily so.

RC


----------



## Stoat (Jun 6, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> 4e turned me into a newt!




Well, I hope you get better!

I'm curious to hear why folks don't think 4E supports world-building.  When I hear the term, I think of political machinations, organizations with conflicting goals, NPC personalities, geographical features, and ancient histories.  I think of these sorts of things as being largely independent of the rules.

What don't I like?

I don't like what they've done with gnomes.


----------



## Turanil (Jun 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Before you base your whole decision on this thread, Turanil, it might help to check into some of the positive experiences, too. There's quite a bit of pro and con going on, and a lot MORE of it over the next month, I'd imagine. But as with any edition, if 3e is currently "floating your boat", there's nothing positively life-changing that will come out of a switch.



You are right, and in fact I am looking forward to read people's experiences of play, in a few weeks or months (when people will have played it a lot). I will be interested to read why some other gamers like the game.


----------



## sinecure (Jun 6, 2008)

Personally, I blame the Forge and vocabulary of gaming they created out of the spite they had for 99% of games and gamers.  It's now infected D&D so it has become nothing but a miniatures game with a single "narrative" mechanic tacked on.  It's the least _ROLEPLAY_-oriented game with the title of RPG that I've ever read.  I mean, I can call Chess a role-playing game, but how dumb would that be? 

I chalk it up to the badly mistaken notion I've heard some of the developers claim that (paraphrasing) "Any game can be roleplayed.  It's not some rule you add to the system".  These guys have been locked in the maze too long.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 6, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> What I hate about 4E:
> 
> Having people walk up to me and explain to me why 4E sucks without having even heard anything about it.
> 
> (I'm not slamming those in this thread, I spend a lot of time at the game shop, and I've had people walk up and explain to me why 4E sucks, and it's apparent they have NO IDEA what they are talking about.  And it drives me nuts.)



I would vehemently disagree with you, _except_ this is the exact reason I refuse to play GURPS. There are (or at least were - the shop were they congregated has since closed) some local GURPS players who would go out of their way to explain why any other game was bad. Going so far as to _take a box of the starter D&D set out of the hands of a kid at the local bookstore_.

As for e4 - my initial feeling was apathy, which grew to dislike as I heard more about it. At least part of my dislike is indeed from the folks who try to shove it down my throat, but most is from just not liking the direction the rules seem to be going. I will take a look at the bookstore, but from my budding dislike, and the investment in the previous edition I doubt that I will be making a purchase.

Last week at one of my games I was surprised when the discussion turned to e4. It turned out that I was the _most_ tolerant of the new edition of the folks gathered around the table. Mind you, this was at a Spycraft game, sort of the opposite end of things from e4 in terms of complexity. (My Spycraft Delta Green game to be precise. I don't think my Steampunk Spycraft players care a whit.  )

The Auld Grump, Pathfinder also looks more to my tastes, even if it is more 3.75 than e4.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jun 6, 2008)

sinecure said:
			
		

> Personally, I blame the Forge and vocabulary of gaming they created out of the spite they had for 99% of games and gamers.  It's now infected D&D so it has become nothing but a miniatures game with a single "narrative" mechanic tacked on.  It's the least _ROLEPLAY_-oriented game with the title of RPG that I've ever read.  I mean, I can call Chess a role-playing game, but how dumb would that be?
> 
> I chalk it up to the badly mistaken notion I've heard some of the developers claim that (paraphrasing) "Any game can be roleplayed.  It's not some rule you add to the system".  These guys have been locked in the maze too long.



That's a pretty good rant and I give you props for it... but I have no idea what this actually means. I know it's hip to pick on the Forge, but they closed their theory forum like three years ago (seriously) so unless they've spent that time building Orbital Mind Control Lasers I think you might possibly be blaming the wrong people. 

To be fair, I assume you mean that some of the concepts, which are similar to concepts fairly recently introduced in some small-press games, are fundamentally incompatible with how you prefer to roleplay. Fair enough. I don't think any one game can make every style of player happy.

It seems to me like the PHB gives advice on roleplaying your character, and the DMG gives advice on presenting sessions where that roleplay is integrated into the mechanical game play. I agree that the mechanics and the roleplay elements integrate differently than they did in past versions of D&D, and that some people don't like it, sure. 

What I don't like? Not really fond of Dragonborn. They just kinda bug me. Probably because they just didn't spark any ideas, and the other classes did. No biggie, I'm sure plenty of people like em.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 6, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> _*fundamentally?!?*_  Not sure I agree with you here.



I must again profess ignorance of the actual rules, but if I am not mistaken, D&D "evolved" from war-gaming, and the original rules contained a lot of combat rules, spells and traps. A real skill system that could mechanically support anything going beyond combat or dungeon-exploration was introduced a lot later (either with the so-called "Non-Weapon" Profiencies in AD&D, or the fully-fledged 3E skill system.)




> Personally, I blame the Forge and vocabulary of gaming they created out of the spite they had for 99% of games and gamers. It's now infected D&D so it has become nothing but a miniatures game with a single "narrative" mechanic tacked on. It's the least ROLEPLAY-oriented game with the title of RPG that I've ever read. I mean, I can call Chess a role-playing game, but how dumb would that be?
> 
> I chalk it up to the badly mistaken notion I've heard some of the developers claim that (paraphrasing) "Any game can be roleplayed. It's not some rule you add to the system". These guys have been locked in the maze too long.



I think the designers actually kept away a lot from the Forgismn. Many discussions on these boards are often discussing the G-N-S terms, but I think I never saw any of the designers chiming in. I think they are aware of the G-N-S terms, but only took what's actually useful to them.



> I mean, I can call Chess a role-playing game, but how dumb would that be?



Yes, because there are no roles in chess. If you were playing a specific chess piece, instead of the guy controlling all of the pieces, you might actually get closer to a role-playing game. 
Monopoly is also not a role-playing game, because the game doesn't care if you're a car or a shoe. 

D&D in all its editions cared about whether you're a Fighter, a Rogue, a Wizard or a Cleric. These 4 classes basically where the original 4 roles, and where later expanded upon. These roles were combat roles, and also had out-of-combat roles. (A Fighter being a kind of Leader, a Cleric being a spiritual person, a Rogue typically being some kind of Thief or ... "criminal", the Wizard being a Sage).


----------



## sinecure (Jun 6, 2008)

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I agree that the mechanics and the roleplay elements integrate differently than they did in past versions of D&D, and that some people don't like it, sure.



It's not that I don't care for them.  It's that the two are completely incompatible with each other as it stands.  You cannot both roleplay and play the minis game they've got going on.  In fact, the game plays better and faster if you don't tack on how your abilities work in the imagined world.  "They just do" is so much easier.

And the lasting embittered nonsense before the Forge closed its' forums has had a detrimental effect on gaming as a whole.  That their pigeon-holing of D&D back at the turn of the century has now infected the actual publishers only means the game has willfully dived into a hole and is calling itself a pigeon.  As D&D is the greatest RPG ever (in my humble opinion) this kind of behavior makes RPGs everywhere look bad.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> D&D in all its editions cared about whether you're a Fighter, a Rogue, a Wizard or a Cleric. These 4 classes basically where the original 4 roles, and where later expanded upon. These roles were combat roles, and also had out-of-combat roles. (A Fighter being a kind of Leader, a Cleric being a spiritual person, a Rogue typically being some kind of Thief or ... "criminal", the Wizard being a Sage).



Not quite true. I agree with most of your post, incidentally. But 4 classes initially? No.

No Thieves, at the very beginning. 

/nitpick


----------



## Imp (Jun 6, 2008)

*mostly I don't get it*

I haven't been here for a while because a) I was disappointed to see this particular part of the forum turn into all edition wars, all the time, and b) I realized that I don't get 4e – I don't know what I can do with it.

That's not true in the broadest sense – you have the players roll up characters and you tell them the adventures they have. I could make a railroad with 4e pretty easy. But it seems like, in general, with the new edition, you have to do a lot more conceptual work to read the tea leaves of what happens when you look at the game mechanics and roll the dice. I've always been kind of concerned about that, but a few weeks ago I realized I basically have no idea what goes on in a 4e fight.

Ok, hit points have always been pretty abstract, sure, but simply enough: when somebody swings a sword at a PC, and hits, and gets to roll damage dice, they've made some sort of contact. If they miss, there is no real contact.

New edition, we have things like the pally's divine challenge and the fighter powers that inflict damage on a miss and things that suggest that ablating hit points is basically a matter of gaining – to use a term that has a different technical meaning in 4e – combat advantage over your foes, to the point where you can dispatch them with a final blow. Which is fine as a system, and which is why I don't mind fighters doing damage on a miss out of general principle. But.

How the hell do you narrate that? The transfer of combat superiority? "You see the knight's parries weaken, his movements grow more hesitant"? Ok, but over and over again, fight after fight after fight after fight? "You hit, he misses" may be rote, but at least it's short. This is work. Conceptual work that the rules don't seem to cover, conceptual work that you have to do over and over again – unless whenever a fight comes up, break immersion, play a little loading screen, go into the abstract (but possibly fun) combat mode, and then go back into narrating.

Or take minions, a concept I don't really have a broad problem with, except if – as I've read – there's a huge gulf between minions and non-minions in their ability to take punishment. What do I mean? Well, you could implement minions in 3.x if you wanted, and they might fit in fairly well, because in 3.x it's perfectly possible to drop a "regular" monster in one shot. In 4e it appears that you have the monsters that drop in a hit, and the monsters you swing at and swing at and swing at until you finally manage to skewer the beastie. Over and over again. In – not each fight, perhaps, but many of them.

To take the minion vs. divine challenge example, how do you describe that? Because here's how I'd like to describe it: "The paladin stops, bellows, and points his sword at the kobold. 'Stop, cur, and bring your blade at me, if you have any honor at all!' But the kobold just stares agape and trembles as its sickle drops nervelessly from its fingers. Sobbing, it curls up in a heap." Sounds like something that could happen! But so now morale failure is a possible consequence of losing all your hit points? It goes back to the roots of wargaming, I suppose, where a "killed" unit can either be destroyed or abandoned or disabled or any number of things that render it combat-incapable, but that's a little abstract for a game that deals with scenarios where you could (in your imagination) see all the characters' faces.

There seem to be a ton of little narrative hurdles like that, and until I see how or if people deal with that I don't think I'm going to buy into this new edition because I can't see what it looks like in my head.

Addendum:
Also – _if_ 4e is fundamentally about killing horrible monsters, then the part when I kill the horrible monsters should be the _very last spot_ where I have to break immersion in order to play the game!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 6, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Not quite true. I agree with most of your post, incidentally. But 4 classes initially? No.
> 
> No Thieves, at the very beginning.
> 
> /nitpick



Nitpick duly noted. You are, off course, right. 

Does this mean that, theoretically, people could consider a game without Rogues (say, 5E) be D&D?  
Or are there some "advancements" made in D&D that should never be taken away?

----



> To take the minion vs. divine challenge example, how do you describe that? Because here's how I'd like to describe it: "The paladin stops, bellows, and points his sword at the kobold. 'Stop, cur, and bring your blade at me, if you have any honor at all!' But the kobold just stares agape and trembles as its sickle drops nervelessly from its fingers. Sobbing, it curls up in a heap."



The divine challenge _is_ magic. You don't have to describe it with moral damage. (In fact, it deals radiant damage, if I am not mistaken). So, you should increase your SFX budget and spend some money on radiant energy coming from either the Paladin or the Sky when the Kobold is challenged...



> How the hell do you narrate that? The transfer of combat superiority? "You see the knight's parries weaken, his movements grow more hesitant"? Ok, but over and over again, fight after fight after fight after fight?



The Fighters blows are so strong and so aggressive that, while the enemy can avoid any real contact with his blade, he is still forced to make extreme, strenuous evasive actions. I hope after the Paladins Divine Challenge, you still have some money left for a good stunt choreographer to pull this off. 

[/D&D movie production tips]


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Or he, like most people, actually changed over the course of seven years.




Or he may actually play different types of games than the ones Hasbro tells him to design. Who knows?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Nitpick duly noted. You are, off course, right.



'Off course.' Heh. Yeah, that too. 




> Does this mean that, theoretically, people could consider a game without Rogues (say, 5E) be D&D?



Of course. This is the reason I'm waiting for 5th ed. 




> Or are there some "advancements" made in D&D that should never be taken away?



Indeed. Like say, _playing_ those figures characters, rather than just moving them around the map/grid.



Oh wait. . .


----------



## Casupaa (Jun 6, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> I forget where I read it, but I had heard that 4e was going to implement a mechanic whereby your race would give you more abilities as you level up, making your choice of race much more relevant at high levels, and making an orc fighter distinct from a similarly built dwarf fighter.
> 
> But it turned out not to be the case. And that was the *one* mechanic I was keen on seeing.
> 
> And then they went and kicked Vancian magic right in the junk. 4e may be a pretty, well-executed kick in the junk with the best of intentions, but I'm still walking funny.




Yeah, I was pretty excited about this one to, but to be honest, its not really a great idea. Races would easily be to specialized and making alot of different, but generally usefull racial progression,(also considering all the races that are coming later) would be something that could never really work right.

Other than that, it would bug a player like me, if only player races would have such a progression. I would want all races to have it.


----------



## Casupaa (Jun 6, 2008)

Stoat said:
			
		

> Well, I hope you get better!
> 
> I'm curious to hear why folks don't think 4E supports world-building.  When I hear the term, I think of political machinations, organizations with conflicting goals, NPC personalities, geographical features, and ancient histories.  I think of these sorts of things as being largely independent of the rules.
> 
> ...




The whole math and mechanics in 4E, makes the game feel like a facade(to me, that is). 3.5 feels like a world to me.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 6, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> ... Good Stuff...
> There seem to be a ton of little narrative hurdles like that, and until I see how or if people deal with that I don't think I'm going to buy into this new edition because I can't see what it looks like in my head.
> 
> Addendum:
> Also – _if_ 4e is fundamentally about killing horrible monsters, then the part when I kill the horrible monsters should be the _very last spot_ where I have to break immersion in order to play the game!



I think this post was incredibly well put and I concur. Whilst I do not yet have the official books, from what I have seen I think this is a key point and problem for a lot of DMs.

As a player and DM who is planning to play a lot of 4th Ed., I have found this thread very enlightening (and so thank you Turanil in starting it). I'm glad that the vast majority have taken it in the vein it was intended. I particularly find cogent BryonD's various posts that to be honest have me worried - but at the same time nodding my head. Thank you BryonD for the feedback.

However, I am thinking perhaps there is one factor that may be interesting in all of this. My group play pretty much as our group does, regardless of game or edition. We're older, immersive kind of guys who will always prefer to roleplay in our various worlds. Will 4E change that? Most probably not. And so, what do I hate about 4E? I'm not exactly sure but I'll post back when I truly know after playing with our group. At the moment, I just have concerns and fears... but not yet hatred.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Stoat (Jun 6, 2008)

Casupaa said:
			
		

> The whole math and mechanics in 4E, makes the game feel like a facade(to me, that is). 3.5 feels like a world to me.




Could you elaborate?  I have some concerns about a minions, but other than that, I don't get this vibe from the preview stuff I've looked at.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Yes, because there are no roles in chess. If you were playing a specific chess piece, instead of the guy controlling all of the pieces, you might actually get closer to a role-playing game.
> Monopoly is also not a role-playing game, because the game doesn't care if you're a car or a shoe.



Sadly, one of the best chess players I know might disagree with you... I swear, him using the voice from Sir Didimous (Labyrinth) for his knights is downright disconcerting. which might be the point....)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Casupaa (Jun 6, 2008)

Stoat said:
			
		

> Could you elaborate?  I have some concerns about a minions, but other than that, I don't get this vibe from the preview stuff I've looked at.




It's alot of small things, minions included. In 4E i feel that my character, is much less character, and alot more combat machine. I liked being able to pick skills(sometimes wierd skills) that supported my character concept. I don't like the way that ability scores work with classes now. As a rogue you have to be very stupid not to constantly max out your dex, and you have to be stupid not to leave an 8 in intelligence. In 3.5 I felt that either score could bring something good down the line, because of all the opportunities in multiclassing or a PrC, and that way I didn't have to "sell out" on my character concept(4E multiclassing seems very limited). My point with ability scores is that they dont feel like how good you are at an ability any more. I could probably go on with these smaller things. I'd rather quote BryonD's earlier post wich pretty much summed up exactly how I feel about this:



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I don't like it because I am a world builder.
> 
> I want a game that is about making a cool world and then using that world to build cool characters in it.  4E, to me, is exactly the opposite.  4E is about building the characters and skewing the rest of the world to fit those characters.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 6, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> New edition, we have things like the pally's divine challenge and the fighter powers that inflict damage on a miss and things that suggest that ablating hit points is basically a matter of gaining – to use a term that has a different technical meaning in 4e – combat advantage over your foes, to the point where you can dispatch them with a final blow. Which is fine as a system, and which is why I don't mind fighters doing damage on a miss out of general principle. But.
> 
> How the hell do you narrate that? The transfer of combat superiority? "You see the knight's parries weaken, his movements grow more hesitant"? Ok, but over and over again, fight after fight after fight after fight? "You hit, he misses" may be rote, but at least it's short.




It would depend on the specific situation; for example, in the case of a heavily armored foe you might say "your weapon comes down hard on his shield, and while he holds back the strike, his shield arm still takes the impact of the blow, and he begins to give ground."  Each situation will require a slightly different narration, if you are the sort to do that - I am, and I've always found that sort of thing to be easy.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 6, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Sadly, one of the best chess players I know might disagree with you... I swear, him using the voice from Sir Didimous (Labyrinth) for his knights is downright disconcerting. which might be the point....)
> 
> The Auld Grump




Hey, no different from making engine noises while moving the tanks around in Advanced Squad Leader, or ordering the troops around with fake Dr. Strangelovean German accents.


----------



## JeffB (Jun 6, 2008)

Lots of good (and few "out there" ) points made   

I picked up KOTS and still was pretty square on the fence. Unfortunately, after taking a gander through the 4E books there are alot of things I still don't like/cant deal with re: 4E. The Good is *really* Good, the Bad is *really* Bad , and outweighs the good for my tastes. 

3.X was the same for me- theres just too much BS I'd have to change to make it worthwhile- games shouldn't be work :shrug:

I ended up spending the money I had allotted for the 4E books at the TLG $10 sale


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 6, 2008)

Slife said:
			
		

> Because four is death.




Yes, 4 = death in Chinese.  Therefore, 4e has bad feng shui.

Switching countries, it also has bad kharma for killing Dungeon & Dragon magazines, and messing with Paizo, which WOTC is jealous of 'cause Paizo writes more interesting stuff.

On the other hand, 4e has good kharma because it's dedicated to Gygax.

As for the actual GAME, well, I haven't read it yet, except the Keep on the Shadowfell.

Which provides good kharma because it has a cool name.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 6, 2008)

sinecure said:
			
		

> It's that the two are completely incompatible with each other as it stands.  You cannot both roleplay and play the minis game they've got going on.




This is absolutely a failure of imagination on your part.


----------



## noretoc (Jun 6, 2008)

I havn't gotten the book yet, so I will only comment on the things I have heard on the boards.

The fact the Roleplaying takes a back seat combat is big for me.  We can say that in other version it always has, but I have never felt that way.  I have always thought that with most of the 3.5 stuff, The story came first, and the stats, feat, etc were made to fit it.  That may not be true for everything, but for quite a bit.  4th is the opposite.  Build an ability and class, and let the players figure out how it fits in.  If I want to do that, I might as well build the class and abilities myself, as I have done in 3.5

Someone in another post said something that sums up some of what I think is wrong.  he said that he and his group were able to roleplay with 4ed.  Out of a four hour session, he spent a whole hour just roleplaying.  Well, in my games, out of a four hour session, 3.5 is just roleplaying.  The rules, the fluff, the classes all had a role outside of combat (Well, maybe the fighter didn't really, but then again he is a fighter.).  In this addition they all have thier place in combat, oh, and if you want you can roleply them too.

The balance thing bothers me too.  It is like catering to underachievers.  Are you mad because you took a fighter and now the wiz can kick your tail?  Well don't worry, in the new edition there are no people onthe bottom.  It is like giving every kid a trophy rather than the winners.  "Your special too"..  What is wrong with being the underdog?  Its a roleplaying game, not a competition.  If you get mad because you can't do as much damage as the wizard at level 15, suck it up.  Play a wizard next time.  Then you will be mad because 1 hit can kill you at level 1.  For a wizard, the whole concept was weak at low levels, and strong at high. What is wrong with that?  It's fun to play the guy who is afraid of getting turned into a newt.  that is what Roleplaying is about.

If I wanted a game where everyone is a hero, and has powers, there are games out there that do it a hell of a lot better then D&D.  In thoes games the point is to be a superhero.  IF fits in with the theme of the game.  I don't think the new edition rules fit at all with the theme of the game that has been d&d for years.

Let me keep my fantasy game, and you can have your paper video game


----------



## Eldragon (Jun 6, 2008)

So I started compiling a list of house rules for 4e if I were to DM a campaign. Its already longer than my 3.5e house rules document. Most of it is putting stuff back into 4e from the 3e core rulebooks. *sigh*


----------



## Wicht (Jun 6, 2008)

Eldragon said:
			
		

> So I started compiling a list of house rules for 4e if I were to DM a campaign. Its already longer than my 3.5e house rules document. Most of it is putting stuff back into 4e from the 3e core rulebooks. *sigh*




Just prior to the announcment by Paizo that they were sticking with the OGL and 3e ruleset, it seemed to me that every complaint I made about 4e was met by 4e fans telling me they didn't understand why I couldn't just houserule it.

Like rolling hp, then figure out your own charts. 
Like alignment, houserule it back in.
Dislike Tieflings and Dragonborn as core races, then houserule them out.
Don't like tall halflings, house rule them at a shorter stature.
Think 200 year old elves dying of old age is dumb, houserule it.

On and on it went until it struck me that any game where I had to ignore every single piece of fluff and change a good portion of the crunch simply was not worth it.


----------



## Imp (Jun 6, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> It would depend on the specific situation; for example, in the case of a heavily armored foe you might say "your weapon comes down hard on his shield, and while he holds back the strike, his shield arm still takes the impact of the blow, and he begins to give ground."  Each situation will require a slightly different narration



Sure, sure – but the whole picture is, you have to do this over and over again, and not just when the PCs take damage, frequently when the monsters do too, and there's a lot more trading shots in the new edition; and yes, you sort of have to go through those hoops in previous editions, but it's easier to fall back on a "you hit, you miss" base. I think.

I'm not talking about inability to come up with an explanation in this instance or that one – I'm talking about the narrative strain that develops when you have to do that sort of thing repeatedly.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jun 6, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about inability to come up with an explanation in this instance or that one – I'm talking about the narrative strain that develops when you have to do that sort of thing repeatedly.




That's a good point. I typically let players describe the results of their actions (I trust 'em to stick to things that "fit" the rule results); that would take some of the heavy lifting off your hands. 

I always felt having to describe the whole imagined world *and* the results of every action was kinda exhausting, in any system, so maybe I'm just lazy.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jun 6, 2008)

Ok, here we go...Just read through my PHB and I have a few 'objections':

Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies - Thank You for forcing "PrC"s on me.  Until this time I have tried to stay as far away from those pieces of flop as possible, now I find out that my campaign must stop at 10th level so I don't have to deal with this.... (of course that last part is hyperbole, but I enjoy that).

The absence of random anything.  HPs, Ability Scores (of course that is optional), damage (for the most part).

The monetary system - who invented it and what were you thinking? platinum as a 100 gold, astral gems??? WTF!   Bring back electrum if you need another monetary value (at least it has some sort of precedence in the game's history)

Magic items in the PHB and a purchase chart - There have never been Wal-Magics in my game and now I have to fight the rules to prove it... (thanks a ton).

The Deity specific feats.  While I understand the need to try and get people to play the PoL system, frankly its unimaginative and bland.  On this note, it is also harder to customize without breaking rules or at least putting in a ton of work...

The alignment system - if you wanted to keep alignment, you should have kept the whole thing or scrapped the whole thing if it didn't work.  The new alignment system is kind of like a donut spare for a car - it's too small, its ineffective and looks funny when you use it.

Teiflings and dragonborn - why are these races standard again?


All that said, the system is innovative and has a few really cool gems.  The absence of Vancian magic is a positive step and the powers list, though a little contrived makes sense within the context of the game.  I can't see trying to run this 'out of the box' like the designers intend, there is just too much dross to be cut away before it resembles something other than a computer role playing game, and if I wanted to play one of those, I would, I would have preferred a focus on role-playing instead of roll-playing, but the hobby has been drifting away from that for a while now.

(I'll add other objections as I go through my other books)


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 6, 2008)

"Oh, how 4e will disappoint you." ~ Al Franken

We played.  5 hours straight.  I DMed.  I didn't like it.  3 players liked it, 3 disliked it.  One said he'd never play that crap again.  

Here are my gut feelings and experiences:
1.  Characters are all munchkins who can never die (unless they get CtG on the ground or the DM).  I managed to kill 3 characters only by targeting singles by kobolds who would die just to kill a character.
2.  WTF is the point of feats now that they've been replaced with epic level abilities?
3.  It wasn't fun to run a game where they could just as well be playing a video game.
4.  It's a pain for the DM because there are TOO DANG MANY DINKY MODIFIERS to pile on monsters, pc's
5.  There's no "beginner level" for the game.  It goes right to epic.
6.  It's even more magic item heavy-dependent than 3.5 was
7.  You don't know if anything's broken yet because it starts out COMPLETELY OUT OF HAND.
8.  Wizards are annoyingly powerful at first level, moreso than all the other classes
9.  I think there are meaningless levels of complexity to this game if this is how it's going to be done.  What's the point of skills, 4 AC's (including saves), and feats again?  Why are they there if it's become simply a D&D miniatures wargame?  It fails at being anythign other than D&D mini's.  The role-playing aspect feels VERY ABSENT.  In comparison, never for a moment, even with constant fighting going on in 3.5 did it feel like it WASN'T a role-playing game..now...no, it doesnt' feel like a fun role playign game.  If I wanted to play (or worse RUN) a computer game, I'd play a computer game.  Is it not fun as a computer game on a tabletop?  That's what I'm saying.
10.  I think it's going to be an inferior way to play a campaign.  You start out with massive amounts of powers and go where?  To REALLY massive amounts of powers.  That sort of thing isn't conducive to campaigns.

What did I like?
1.  PC's have more options for at least the first encounter
2.  The artwork is really ugly (I like ugly artwork) and kind of looks like computer generated on top of a scribble job someone did on a mac.  It's not as ugly as Planescape (I thought PS and the 1e DMG had the ugliest artwork prior to DT's stuff..and hence definately wins the ugly award).
3.  I hate to say it, but I'm glad it was hacked and pirated because I'm going to be a lot more choosy about what I buy in the future and chances are there will be a lot more critical reviews out there (unlike 3.5E, where you had mean-spirited-fanboys coming out of the woodwork to defend meaningless issues on clearly inferior products like someone was questioning their patriotism or something).
4.  I like that the encounters are cleanly laid out (from  a DM standpoint).  The adventures have clearly evolved (most likely through the RPGA's pioneering of scenario formatting and DM feedback).
5.  I like that the d4 is still used sometimes.
6.  I like that it can be played on MAPTOOLS.

One of my players' reviews was thus:
As for my review of 4e, I'm teetering on the fence.  It's...different.  The differences in the rules I can overcome, but I'm not quite sure what to do with this "marking" thing.  And it was cool to see a 1st level mage a force to be reckoned with.  But, at the same time, 4e has a video game feel that I'm not too keen on.  For instance, if the mage really wanted to, he could've leveled an entire forest with his at-will powers and so could a warlock.  Instead of healing someone through bandages and perhaps a little divine energy, people are healed by a bright sheen of light that cascades from the sky.  Warriors no longer trade blows, but instead trade video game moves as if I was swirling around an arcade joystick to pull off some crazy stunt.  Example: my dwarf's "Reaping Strike" could've been taken from E. Honda's "Thousand Palm Strike" from Street Fighter II.  
While the powers are neat and add a little flavor to the game--and I'm excited what sort of powers a character will be able to perform at higher levels--the use of the powers, and there extreme prevalence, loses the nit and grit and rough (very rough) historical feel that I like and have replaced it with pixelated in-your-face fantasy.
But, you know, it was only the first game.  So...maybe it just takes a little time to get used to."



..


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jun 6, 2008)

DMG - Overall this book is a gem!
A few things however that look out of place:
Diseases with levels is ridiculous, disease is a danger of unfortunate actions, whether through ignorance or stupidity.  Also the fact that no disease is fatal is a little unbelievable.

Poisons - no fatal poisons is about as likely as a mouse with an allergy to cheese.

Traps and hazards - I don't know who thought to break these two up but you deserve a raise and a long vacation.  Hazards are what most people think of as traps.  However, the trap section states that traps damage, harry or impede - this is false - traps are meant to kill, period.  Otherwise its a waste of resources.  So again, a trap that cannot kill is out of place.  

The idea that all games are taking place in the PoL is evident but can be ignored for the most part (although the crap about treasure including Astral diamonds as a form of currency in the heavenly and Astral realms made me gag.)  As someone who has never liked the concept of _Planscape_, trying to 'force' that aspect as a core concept is appalling to me.

Magic parcels are an interesting concept but I have this feeling that it will lead to Monty Haul very quickly.  (I will have to play test to confirm of course, but a level + 5 magic item as a 1st level parcel just seems wrong.)

XP makes much more sense in its explanation this time around, even though the system is virtually unchanged, the fact that they give you the formula instead of the end result allows for a better scaling than guesstimating.  (especially since I have 12 players)

After my complaint of putting the magic items in the PHB, I'm glad to see that artifacts are handled exclusively as the purview of the DM still.

Minions are going to be a problem, I can just feel it, great idea, but I am unsure of the concept of one-shot bad-guy that isn't just a peon. 1/4 XP is a good idea, but I think at hight levels that may still be too much. (Again, playtesting will tell the tale.)


The Monster Manual works well inside the scope of the rules, so I will say this is the strongest of the three books. (But then again, how hard is it to make a book with stats and figures?)


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Jun 7, 2008)

The thing I hate about 4E is that there's not more information - they could and should have tripled the length of the powers, feats, etc. lists. I don't care how big the book got.

I also dislike the political correctness of mixing gender pronouns.  Stupid.

Otherwise than the political correctness thing, 4E is the child of 1E.

And 1E was, by far and away, my favorite edition of D&D.  Until now.

Wis


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 7, 2008)

I find it interesting that a great deal of the complaints about 4e leveled here are the same ones that a lot of us fans of older editions had about 3e.  In fact, I'd say the vast majority are the same.  Combat is too clunky.  PCs are now nigh-invulnerable superheroes.  Magic is too different.  Monsters are just bundles of stats.  It feels like a video game.  Too much arbitrary change.

I don't mock; it's just that it's very interesting.  I've got this weird sense of _deja vu_, I guess.

With that said, those are all my arguments about 4e.  That, plus it is effectively not *D&D* any more.  Not for me.  And I'd still like an explanation why Greyhawk was swept under the rug.  I mean, seriously.


----------



## Henry (Jun 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> This is absolutely a failure of imagination on your part.



Y'know, there are other threads on this forum, and if the topic isn't to your liking, there's no sense in coming in to deliver personal insults. I'm not saying to stop posting in this thread, but if it's nowhere near topic, I'm going to ask you to stop.


This goes for anyone else, too.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 7, 2008)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that a great deal of the complaints about 4e leveled here are the same ones that a lot of us fans of older editions had about 3e.  In fact, I'd say the vast majority are the same.  Combat is too clunky.  PCs are now nigh-invulnerable superheroes.  Magic is too different.  Monsters are just bundles of stats.  It feels like a video game.  Too much arbitrary change.
> 
> I don't mock; it's just that it's very interesting.  I've got this weird sense of _deja vu_, I guess.




It's true there were some complaints about that, particularly the nigh-invulnerable superheroes. But I think a lot of those complaints were before people had really tried high-level play with its mercurial potentialities.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 7, 2008)

Wicht said:
			
		

> Just prior to the announcment by Paizo that they were sticking with the OGL and 3e ruleset, it seemed to me that every complaint I made about 4e was met by 4e fans telling me they didn't understand why I couldn't just houserule it.
> 
> Like rolling hp, then figure out your own charts.
> Like alignment, houserule it back in.
> ...




Good point....I kind of feel the same way.  4E isn't devoid of merit....it's just that when I look over the three books, I have to throw so much of it out in order to get to the good stuff, that I'm wondering if it would be better to just cherry pick the stuff I want.

I like the idea of a condition track, and the concept of opposed roles.  At least with respect to using skills for social effects (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc.) opposed roles are probably the best.

I like the idea of powers....but in 3E, I can get those out of Tome of Battle.

I also like the idea of the Eladrin and the Feywild....but I've already got "Faeries" from Bastion Press, Van Richten's Guide to the Shadow Fey, and Complete Guide to Fey, and between the three of them, they do what I need anyways.

Even the Dragonborn, in concept, I don't mind...but we've got mechanics for them already.....using the 4E Dragonborn would simply be a matter of applying their fluff to the stats from Races of the Dragon or whatever.

But the video gamey feel?  Clerics who aren't spellcasters?  Losing all these classes?  200 year old elves?  The drastically reduced equipment?  The fact that most of the powers for the different classes are very, very close stat-wise, and only differ in their fluff?

I'll admit, leafing through it at the store today, the books look great.  They obviously have high production values.  But it's evident from the wider margins, the larger type face, and the profusion of huge colour spreads taking up 1.5 pages, and other images taking up such huge segments of the book, that there's far less to it.

People seemed to be receiving it positively at the store.  But then, many were just flipping through the books....so maybe they haven't sat down with them and really read them yet.....or, maybe I'm "wrong", in not liking them.  Who knows?

Banshee


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 7, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's true there were some complaints about that, particularly the nigh-invulnerable superheroes. But I think a lot of those complaints were before people had really tried high-level play with its mercurial potentialities.





About what, about 3e?  Understand, I did 3e for quite a while, as well as a d20 WoT game, both to very high level.  The superheroness stayed the same or got worse - but that's for another thread.  You can email me or PM me if you want to continue.  I just don't wanna muck up the 4e thread.


----------



## El_Gringo (Jun 7, 2008)

So I ran a game earlier this week. I thought everything was going well until the wizard decided to use Magic Missile.

"I rolled a 1. I missed."

"You missed with Magic Missile?"

I think the system is ok and I'll continue running it, but it doesn't feel like D&D.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 7, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'll admit, leafing through it at the store today, the books look great.  They obviously have high production values.  But it's evident from the wider margins, the larger type face, and the profusion of huge colour spreads taking up 1.5 pages, and other images taking up such huge segments of the book, that there's far less to it.
> 
> People seemed to be receiving it positively at the store.  But then, many were just flipping through the books....so maybe they haven't sat down with them and really read them yet.....or, maybe I'm "wrong", in not liking them.  Who knows?



I've glanced through the MM and flipped quickly through the DMG (got called away before I could look at the PH), but frankly, the MM bored me.  Lists and lists and lists of stats.  No descriptions.  No environment, habitat, or anything.  What exactly is that thing tucked in next to the worg?  I went from a certain sale (albeit later this week), to an almost certain non-sale.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I've glanced through the MM and flipped quickly through the DMG (got called away before I could look at the PH), but frankly, the MM bored me.  Lists and lists and lists of stats.  No descriptions.  No environment, habitat, or anything.  What exactly is that thing tucked in next to the worg?  I went from a certain sale (albeit later this week), to an almost certain non-sale.




Agreement here.  I haven't seen such a stark representation of monsters since the OD&D *MONSTERS & TREASURES* booklet.  Except here, it isn't a good thing.

Plus some of the editorial decisions made with regard to the monsters themselves is...questionable.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 7, 2008)

Stoat said:
			
		

> I'm curious to hear why folks don't think 4E supports world-building.  When I hear the term, I think of political machinations, organizations with conflicting goals, NPC personalities, geographical features, and ancient histories.  I think of these sorts of things as being largely independent of the rules.



From my brief skim of the DMG and the MM, I thought world-building would be, if not crushed, at least made more difficult by the near-total lack of environmental information on monsters, and the DMG apparently laying out who runs towns, cities, and etc (ie, towns have an absent noble lord and his local representative is a reeve).  I could very well have missed the handy table of alternate styles of government, but I somehow I doubt it.

It just looked harder to "build a world" from the box without knowledge from previous editions or just making your own decisions (all my worgs live in swamps!).  I know world-building is supposed to be all about making your own decisions, but it presumes a common language that D&D no longer provides.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 7, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I wonder how unbalanced things would be if one used the racial substitutions as "add ons" vs. "substitutions".
> I may read up on that a bit tonight...
> Edit - I think the Pathfinder Alpha has benefits for races as they reach certain levels, but I may be misremembering.






			
				Achan hiArusa said:
			
		

> They don't, but I had thought that if you give feats every odd level then that leaves 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level open to give characters things that are not dependent on class.  I'm working on using the racial levels mixed with some of the continuing racial abilities from the Paizo Dark Sun to give characters racial benefits (I can also use at least the human evolved levels from Arcana Evolved for this purpose).



I've been mulling over the possibilities of "dual-classing" or "dual-tracking" characters so they hypothetically get a class benefit at one level and a race/cultural benefit at the next level.  Rinse and repeat.

That said, 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th is still alot of open spaces to play with.  Or you could give a racial benefit at every odd level and just make ability score bonuses a racial benefit (one that can't be taken twice in a row, or with a bonus limit of level/4)


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jun 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> <SNIP>
> It just looked harder to "build a world" from the box without knowledge from previous editions or just making your own decisions (all my worgs live in swamps!).  I know world-building is supposed to be all about making your own decisions, but it presumes a common language that D&D no longer provides.



I agree, which is why I made the comment of not being playable out of the box.  There really is a lot of interesting stuff here, I just think the designers went "clunk' on too many needed aspects in an effort to force the PoL campaign model.  Which, frankly, doesn't appeal to me one iota, it's probably the most broken thing about the system - a free form world for the DM to make his own; you know except for the gods, and the classes, and the interaction of PC and NPCs, and the basics of the setting, and the set-up of the planes, but other than that, its all your baby!


----------



## Philodox00 (Jun 7, 2008)

I don't like the various Magic Armor Types, like "Angel Steel" or "Bloodthread Armor".  It really reminds me of my Everquest days.  I just prefer "Plate Armor +2" or "Leather Armor +5"  and leave it at that.  The various additions to the magic armor, leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I also don't like the Marking feature.  It really does remind me of on-line gaming, where everyone wanted the "Tank" (or in 4E terms, Defender) to gain hard hitting mob's attention, so he could soak up the damage.  In fact, the various "class roles", seem to be taken straight out of on-line gaming thought.  Defender?  Tank.  Striker?  Dps.  Leader?  Buffer.  Controler?  Crowd Control.

Don't like the shoe horned Path and Destiny.  I don't understand why I can't just be a Cleric till level 30?  Why do I have to become a Radiant Defender?  One thing I appreciated about 3E was that, Prestige Classes were always just an option.

There isn't much Non-Combat development either.  I always liked having rules for my Clerics who were History Buffs and Fighters who were weaponsmiths in their spare time.  I understand some skills were condensed, which I agree with ( Stealth, Perception and Theivery ) but where are the Craft and Knowledge skills?  Why wasn't Intimidate and Bluff condensed into something like "Manipulate"


----------



## gonesailing (Jun 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> From my brief skim of the DMG and the MM, I thought world-building would be, if not crushed, at least made more difficult by the near-total lack of environmental information on monsters, and the DMG apparently laying out who runs towns, cities, and etc (ie, towns have an absent noble lord and his local representative is a reeve).  I could very well have missed the handy table of alternate styles of government, but I somehow I doubt it.
> 
> It just looked harder to "build a world" from the box without knowledge from previous editions or just making your own decisions (all my worgs live in swamps!).  I know world-building is supposed to be all about making your own decisions, but it presumes a common language that D&D no longer provides.




That actually makes sense to me.  There truly isn't that much information about creating "worlds" in the core books.  It is still possible, but it will mean referencing many more other sources than these books.  Not a bad thing necessarily but certainly a bar for newer DMs.

Also I agree about the Magic armor types.  However, D&D has always been a little too high magic for me.  I think we'll just chuck all that in the garbage and give the bonuses directly to the characters.


----------



## mrswing (Jun 7, 2008)

Haven't seen this one yet:

Skill Challenges are not conducive to roleplaying (I'm talking about the social aspect of the adventure, not when the skill challenge is merely physical). Yes, there is a big example in the DMG on how the players try to influence a ruler. But why do you need (for example) 6 successes out of ten rolls to achieve that? Why doesn't the DM simply decide beforehand which arguments will have merit, which will be counterproductive (talking in a very general sense, obviously, the inventiveness or craziness of the players cannot be factored in completely), have the characters roleplay the conversation and if necessary use one roll with modifiers to see whether they achieve their task? Skill challenges as they are conceived of now are just disguised dice rolling fests. 

Upping starting level hitpoints is a good idea - no one new to roleplaying relishes the idea of playing a weakling who cannot survive one encounter. But upping eveyone's hit points while reducing damage output is the very opposite of fun, and fairly guarantees combat lasting as long as it did before (or even longer). Which defeats the whole 'more fun, less chores' approach which apparently guided the design team.

Speaking of which: marking? Who demanded this to be in the rules? The designers or the playtesters? To me, this is a wholly unnecessary new level of complication. Just like tokens were a new, overcomplicated mechanic in Iron Heroes. 

Some of the powers are stupid and have bad names ( the pit fiend's Irresistible command, for example). Others are cool, still others are meh. 

Narrowly defined party roles are dull, limiting and pointless.

D&D no longer resembles fantasy fiction in any way or form save for basic subject matter. It's become its own thing completely. Which means that it's harder than ever to try and approximate the fantasy fiction experience with it. 

The monster selection in the MM is bizarre. I don't miss the descriptive text - it was always hideously badly written and a waste of space. Especially since every creature is illustrated clearly  (and a picture says a thousand words   ). However, the absolute lack of story hooks and ecology make it a dull book (unlike the Iron Kingdom Monsternomicons, for example, which simply scream 'use me'!).

Too many changes were either ill-conceived or change for change's sake. Not necessarily with regards to 3e but with regards to D&D itself. Not that some changes weren't necessary or desirable (and some of the changes implemented are good ideas). But they went overboard and I am sure that in the months to come many quirks and problems will be discovered which were unforeseen.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 7, 2008)

gonesailing said:
			
		

> That actually makes sense to me.  There truly isn't that much information about creating "worlds" in the core books.  It is still possible, but it will mean referencing many more other sources than these books.  Not a bad thing necessarily but certainly a bar for newer DMs.



The reason for this is because D&D is focusing more on the Adventure and less on the World.

You could run The Temple of Elemental Evil and it would be fun in any world.  In fact, the details of the world it takes place in are entirely inconsequential to most of the mod except for some names.  The idea is to concentrate on the immediate adventure: We must stop the wizard from attacking the city, we must rescue the princess, and so on.

The DMG gives a lot more information for focusing on these things.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 7, 2008)

This...


			
				Nellisir said:
			
		

> I've glanced through the MM and flipped quickly through the DMG (got called away before I could look at the PH), but frankly, the MM bored me.  Lists and lists and lists of stats.  No descriptions.  No environment, habitat, or anything.  What exactly is that thing tucked in next to the worg?  I went from a certain sale (albeit later this week), to an almost certain non-sale.




and this...


			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Agreement here.  I haven't seen such a stark representation of monsters since the OD&D *MONSTERS & TREASURES* booklet.  Except here, it isn't a good thing.
> 
> Plus some of the editorial decisions made with regard to the monsters themselves is...questionable.




The MM is the book I have the most problems with (so far).  It is beyond bland.  WotC gives us a system to make monsters that's simple and quick, why then do we need a book of just stats?  I expected some inspiration, hooks, ecologies, etc. for the price of this book...not 5 variations of a goblin I could have easily made up, more than a fair share of reused artwork and a questionable selection of monsters.  I reallly feel like this book was padded to semi-justify it's price..  give me 3 examples at the most of "variations" on one monster, and give me more monsters to work with... not the other way around.  

I want a book that makes me want to use a monster because the game developers created something so cool and with so many hooks that I go damn, why didn't I think of that.  For a good example I refer to WW's Changeling the Lost, they know how to create antagonists that make you want to use them.

I remember, when I was a kid, opening the monster manual on summer break and loving to read through it.  Every time I read a description of a monster, a whole adventure would pop in my head around that creature...just don't get that feeling with the 4th ed. MM.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jun 7, 2008)

I have to 'defend' the Monster Manual for a second - I can completely understand the lack of ecologies, setting etc.  If you read the DMG and the PHB its obvious that you don't have a setting with any real strength to it.  They give you stats and 'roles' so that you can drop them in anywhere.  

While as a DM that likes to screw with ecologies I can respect this, however, if I were new to the game, a white dragon in the middle of the desert wouldn't seem out of place, which of course is just badwrongfun...

I think the MM for what is is fine, especially if taken in context with the DMG, but as a stand alone book, yeah, I can see why most people are hacked off at it.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 7, 2008)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> I have to 'defend' the Monster Manual for a second - I can completely understand the lack of ecologies, setting etc.  If you read the DMG and the PHB its obvious that you don't have a setting with any real strength to it.  They give you stats and 'roles' so that you can drop them in anywhere.
> 
> While as a DM that likes to screw with ecologies I can respect this, however, if I were new to the game, a white dragon in the middle of the desert wouldn't seem out of place, which of course is just badwrongfun...
> 
> I think the MM for what is is fine, especially if taken in context with the DMG, but as a stand alone book, yeah, I can see why most people are hacked off at it.




Speaking solely (likely so) for myself, it isn't so much "ecologies" - in my thinking "ecologies" aren't separate blocks of text, but cool stuff in the overall description.

The new MM is lacking those.  For example, here's the new MM entry on the Sauhagin:



> ALSO KNOWN AS SEA DEVILS, sahuagin are vicious sea dwellers
> that share many traits with sharks. They slaughter and devour
> anything they can catch, raiding coastal settlements in the
> dead of night.




Now compare that to the column inches taken up by Steve Marsh's entry for them in the original *MONSTER MANUAL* for *AD&D* - which is copied from *SUPPLEMENT II: BLACKMOOR*, verbatim. 

The MM has no ring to it.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 7, 2008)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> I have to 'defend' the Monster Manual for a second - I can completely understand the lack of ecologies, setting etc.  If you read the DMG and the PHB its obvious that you don't have a setting with any real strength to it.  They give you stats and 'roles' so that you can drop them in anywhere.
> 
> While as a DM that likes to screw with ecologies I can respect this, however, if I were new to the game, a white dragon in the middle of the desert wouldn't seem out of place, which of course is just badwrongfun...
> 
> I think the MM for what is is fine, especially if taken in context with the DMG, but as a stand alone book, yeah, I can see why most people are hacked off at it.




I think it stands out so much because it is so inconsistent with the marketing and tone of the other two books.  I, as well as my players, after reading through 4e felt that it had been brought to a more simplistic level (in nearly everything) to make it more accessible to new players.  In fact my brother chuckled a little after looking over the PHB and said "This seems like it's been written for someone who has never played rpg's before".  

Ok taking that into consideration, the MM is woefully inadequate as far as setting up the new player with ideas and inspiration on how to use these stat blocks in an interesting hook that will actually get the PC's motivated enough to fight them.  In fact it seems as if it was written from the standpoint of someone who has a previous MM to refer to.  

Like I said earlier I could have easily done with 3 or 4 rather than 7 variations on goblins to get a more engaging and interesting book (or even a wider variation of monsters to build on).  YMMV of course.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 7, 2008)

The PHB should be written to allow as many people to easily get into the game as possible.  They DO want to pull more people into gaming after all.

They are relying on the pictures to describe the monsters.  How many times did we read examples of monsters and have the art woefully wrong?  I can think of several personally.  So skip the description.  That description you gave for the new Sauhagin tells me several things I need to know and an easy hook to bring them into an adventure is a coastal town being raided/menaced by a group of them.  Easy.  

Several monsters have mentions of being from the Feywild or Shadowfell.  What more do we need to know with that?  Haven't been able to look thru my new books much yet, but aren't the basic areas talked about like that in some location?  

So many people are always griping about settings like the Realms having too much detail on too fine a scale and how they wish they could get a setting from WoTC that had more breathing room.  The PoL setting is just what those people asked for, and now some of them are unhappy (not pointing at anyone in particular in thread) w/the barebones setting and demand more world information.

The descriptions give me enough information to place them where I want.  If someone puts a white dragon in the desert, ok but it isnt' wrongbadfun, it's their idea of something interesting.  Besides, the MM does say "and primarily dwell in cold climates".  So this could be an exception to the rule or they just skimmed over that part.  The MM does include info on where it is typically encountered tho.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 7, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> The descriptions give me enough information to place them where I want. The MM does include info on where it is typically encountered tho.



Just for kicks, can you give us the written description and info of the secondary worg monster, the one right after "worg" (I think it starts with a "Y")?  Not the stat block, just the "fluff" text.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 7, 2008)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> I have to 'defend' the Monster Manual for a second - I can completely understand the lack of ecologies, setting etc.  If you read the DMG and the PHB its obvious that you don't have a setting with any real strength to it.  They give you stats and 'roles' so that you can drop them in anywhere.



I think, and this is just my gut feeling, that WotC pretty well misjudged their audience for the MM.  Previous MMs have had stats and flavor.  It seems clear that this time around, WotC decided that people could provide their own flavor, and WotC would just bring the stats.

I know there are people that think that's great.  But those are the people that didn't care for, or rewrote, or ignored, the flavor anyways.  The flavor, IMO, was inspiring and evocative.  I'm a good writer and good DM, but I have blind spots and I rely on other peoples inspiration to supplement my own (as everyone should, really). I don't need a surfeit of detail, but the 4e MM doesn't even rise to bare bones.  It's the anti-Monstrous Compendium.

The stats are mechanics.  They're mechanical.  You can (and people have) written programs to generate perfectly good stats, or add templates to existing stat blocks.  Good flavor is what's hard.  Flavor is what draws you into a game.  If I wanted a flavorless game based on random numbers, I'd play internet bingo.


----------



## Mark Hope (Jun 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Just for kicks, can you give us the written description and info of the secondary worg monster, the one right after "worg" (I think it starts with a "Y")?  Not the stat block, just the "fluff" text.



Nice one .  There isn't any.  There's only a tactics section that tells us that a guulvorg prefers to make bite attacks against single foes and if engaged by two or more enemies, it uses _guulvorg fury_.  Although the lore section does impart the crucial information that Guulvorgs are often encountered in pairs (a male and a female) and are capable of bearing Large riders into battle.

That's pretty sparse by anyone's standards.

Mind you, we could always use the worg info...


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 7, 2008)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Nice one .  There isn't any.  There's only a tactics section that tells us that a guulvorg prefers to make bite attacks against single foes and if engaged by two or more enemies, it uses _guulvorg fury_.  Although the lore section does impart the crucial information that Guulvorgs are often encountered in pairs (a male and a female) and are capable of bearing Large riders into battle.
> 
> That's pretty sparse by anyone's standards.
> 
> Mind you, we could always use the worg info...




So I take that to mean "can appear anywhere".  Excellent 

Half empty/half full.  I'm an optimist


----------



## Imaro (Jun 7, 2008)

I just have one question about that entry... are worgs half-rocks now?  It looks like that in the pcture.


----------



## Mark Hope (Jun 7, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> So I take that to mean "can appear anywhere".  Excellent
> 
> Half empty/half full.  I'm an optimist





Either way, it's good for a laugh.


----------



## Turanil (Jun 7, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> In fact my brother chuckled a little after looking over the PHB and said "This seems like it's been written for someone who has never played rpg's before".



Well, for what I understand, WotC's intent is to target a young audience of teenagers, and bring new people to a game that was made for them. I am appalled by what I read about 4e, but in fact it's just the new edition is not targeted at people my age and culture. As far as I am concerned, enough laugh and hate about 4e. I will now just forget about it and let those for whom it was done enjoy it and have their fun.         

End of 4e talk on my part.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 8, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> So I take that to mean "can appear anywhere".  Excellent
> Half empty/half full.  I'm an optimist



Yes, appears anywhere.  Also, eats anything, may or may not actually resemble the picture (which, other than being a quadruped, didn't look much like a worg), and enjoys an enlightened theocratically oriented society based on a love of basketweaving.

Well, that's how I'm going to write them in the next adventure I submit to Dungeon, anyways.  Why not?  Fluff doesn't matter.

(Actually, I lie.  None of that stuff will make it into the adventure; the gullvorg encountered therein will simply be in an Exciting, Dynamic Encounter Location designed to Optimize the gullvorg's combat Powers and Allow the PCs to Utilize their at-will and per encounter Powers in a Swift but Enjoyment-Maximized Manner.  And lead them into the next Exciting, Dynamic Encounter Location after a Convenient five-minute Milestone Interlude.)

<sigh>
I don't hate 4e.  It's just so...corporate.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jun 8, 2008)

Back to the MM really quick to answer the three replies to my post in order:
1.  Yes, it's bare, but it was designed that way.  And the ecologies was only an example not a definitive pecking point.  Yes the descriptions are stark, but for a purpose: For example take the Basilisk.

MM pg 26 - Basilisks are predatory reptiles that hunt with a deadly gaze attack.  They are not malicious creatures but their gaze attack makes them feared.
_(now we go into the mind of the DM)
Hmmm, not a whole lot to go on - no physical description, but there is a picture at the bottom.  I don't like the fact that it has 8 legs, I want mine to have 6.  Doesn't say it has 6...but then again it doesn't say it CAN'T have 6 either.  What if the number of legs mean a different type, or maybe the legs determine the sex? ...etc..._

I can't say this was the intended purpose of the design sparsity, but with everything I've seen in the other books, it sure points in that direction.  Also, I like the fact that in the Encounter Groups Section it states that tamed basilisks can be found among various humanoids.  No restrictions on who can or can't have them or an environment to preclude a race from having the.  No rules on what makes one tame or how to tame them.  It's all up to you.  This I like! (But then that's just me.)

2 & 3.  (since they overlap)  I have to pretty much concur that ZERO direction does appear to part from the 'pick it up and play' path.  I have a feeling though that any new DM will, just like in the old days kind of fall into the role naturally.  I remember I DM'ed my first game without owning a DMG, a MM or a PHB, but just cobbled together some stuff from my brain and ran with it.  Heck I only had 6-siders so my dice rolling was even inventive.  I can see where fluff text can drive you in a direction, but as my above example shows (see #1) it isn't completely devoid of imagination sparkers either.  I can't fault either of you for your opinion, but I can't completely agree with them either, so I'm not sure where this one stands with me. (Is that cool?  Or more importantly does it makes sense?)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to say YAH!!!! It's 4e so it's better.  As many of my posts have pointed out, I have some MAJOR issues with a few things, however, what I like, I like a lot, don't get me started on the stuff I don't...


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jun 8, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> <SNIP>
> <sigh>
> I don't hate 4e.  It's just so...corporate.



Now THAT is the funniest thing I've seen yet....KUDOS TO YOU!


----------



## korjik (Jun 8, 2008)

This is 4e Warhammer Quest, not 4e Dungeons and Dragons.  

I just remembered one of my real gripes. I think the book quality is poor compared to 3.5. When you just get them home and the covers dont lie flat, that is a bad sign. That and the editing....

Our two real gripes are book quality and editing!  

I found the structure of the books to be a bit wierd, and have already found several mistakes. I do kinda expect better


----------



## Scribble (Jun 8, 2008)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> _(now we go into the mind of the DM)
> Hmmm, not a whole lot to go on - no physical description, but there is a picture at the bottom.  I don't like the fact that it has 8 legs, I want mine to have 6.  Doesn't say it has 6...but then again it doesn't say it CAN'T have 6 either.  What if the number of legs mean a different type, or maybe the legs determine the sex? ...etc..._




Aww man... I dissagree... I'd say it goes more like this:

_ Dude! A lizard with 6 legs! Thats friggin sweet! An it can turn a fool to stone?!?!? Six legged stoney lizard! WORD! I'ma be zappin beotches tonight with this thing!_


----------



## resistor (Jun 8, 2008)

I've read through a friend's copy of the books, and played in a 4 hour demo today.  Here are my thoughts based on those:

- Non-caster at-will powers are silly.  When the fighter have five different abilities that all boil down to "I smack him with my sword," the choice between them becomes purely mechanical, not thematic or flavorful.  I thought it worked OK for casters where there was signficant variation between the powers, but not for melee oriented classes.
- The entire tiering of at-will, per-encounter, and daily powers reminded me a lot of my MMO-playing days, with skill cooldown etc.  In fact, the whole power system reminded me of playing an MMO.  
- Aggro as a major concept was and is my least favorite thing in MMOs.  Nothing's more boring than playing the character whose only purpose is to get hit.
- I agree with most of the earlier comments about it making world-building harder.
- I HATE the new alignment system.  Either keep it as it was, or get rid of it completely (and i'll just add my preferred version, the previous one, back in).
- I really liked the 3e warlock, but the new one is awful.  Curses!?
- Warlord.  I hated the concept in MMOs too.
- Lack of monster fluff in the MM the worst thing since sliced kobold droppings
- The layout of powers in the PHB reminds me a lot of the manual for the copy of Civilization (2?) that I had a while ago that listed all the techs in the game.  Not inherently a bad thing, but the color-coded boxes give me a real computer-game-manual vibe.
- The art is amazingly ugly and poorly used.  I strongly dislike the emphasis on broad action shots, and despise the one-and-a-half-page spread format.  I prefer more smaller pictures that illustrate individual items, concepts, races, etc. to large ones where I can't tell what's being depicted.  Also, I think the general style of the pictures themselves is crappy.

OK, so the last two are superficial, but what can I say?  The visual appeal of a product has a non-negligible effect on my liking/disliking of it.


----------



## Roman (Jun 8, 2008)

I am neither converting to the 4th edition nor am I even planning to buy the rulebooks. I don't like the fact that simulationist concerns were apparently deliberately ignored by the designers and I am also not so keen on wholesale 'reimagining' of D&D flavor to the point that from what I have seen in the previews I wouldn't even consider the game to be D&D any more. I also have a sour aftertaste in my mouth after the terrible marketing campaign. Needless to say, I am not about to reward WotC with my cash for chosing to switch the target audience from my demographic to another. 

As such, I am not planning to buy 4th edition products. On top of that, I have no interest in DMing 4th edition campaigns even if somebody were to lend me the books and all my campaigns will remain 3.5E or Pathfinder RPG. If I happen to move somewhere far away and thus lose my existing gaming groups, I guess I would be willing to play in a 4E campaign using somebody else's books. For some reason, 4E offends my DMing sensibilities more than my player sensibilities.


----------



## Evilusion (Jun 8, 2008)

Well I do not post much, but after reading the new edition of DnD I also have a few gripes. Now do not get me wrong I will try 4e but some things just really stuck me as odd.

1. Classes... They all have about the same hit points, skills and powers. Yea I know there are varations but for me it is close enough that they should have made just one class and allowed you pick your powers. 

2. Alignment... I like the old system but the new one, they should have just made good, neutral and evil. Simple and easy. Let the players role play how good, neutral or evil they want to be.

3. Monster Manual.. Yes the whole thing, Please for the love of that is sane stop but odd names to monsters. Just give me Orc not 4 different varations of Orc. Another example is the Visejaw Crocodile all it needs to be is Crocodile. Just give some rules how you advance monsters and I can take it from there.


Evilusion


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2008)

4e is the edition where Greedo shot first.


----------



## La Bete (Jun 8, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 4e is the edition where Greedo shot first.




The foulest insult so far! Sir, do you have no shame? Do you finally have no shame?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Aww man... I dissagree... I'd say it goes more like this:
> 
> _ Dude! A lizard with 6 legs! Thats friggin sweet! An it can turn a fool to stone?!?!? Six legged stoney lizard! WORD! I'ma be zappin beotches tonight with this thing!_




And the thing is, for a particular style of play that is all you need (mainly dungeoncrawl after dungeoncrawl).  But how does it take away from that style if it in fact does describe it?  Second what if the PC's want to know specific things (within reason) that do not apply to it's combat prowess or better yet as a new DM you want to base an actual adventure (not just a combat) around the basilisk and are looking for inspiration.... I know make it up, but where is my jump of point? Good thing I've got my previous editions as a place to start with.  I mean honestly, IMHO,  this book is little more than a collection of DDM cards for the monsters.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 8, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> And the thing is, for a particular style of play that is all you need (mainly dungeoncrawl after dungeoncrawl).  But how does it take away from that style if it in fact does describe it?




Well my comment wasn't really meant to debate the idea of flavor in the MM... I was just commenting on the internal monologue. 

But since you asked... it doesn't really, but if you start giving too much, you clutter up the page, and sometimes force an idea on someone.



> Second what if the PC's want to know specific things (within reason) that do not apply to it's combat prowess or better yet as a new DM you want to base an actual adventure (not just a combat) around the basilisk and are looking for inspiration.... I know make it up, but where is my jump of point? Good thing I've got my previous editions as a place to start with.  I mean honestly, IMHO,  this book is little more than a collection of DDM cards for the monsters.




I'm wondering how many people actually read the MM instead of simply skimming through it?  There is actually LOADS of info on monsters outside of combat, but it seems like people skim past it because it's preceeded by a skill DC... Maybe people just assume since there's a number there it's obviously combat crunch? I don't know... 

True, not ALL of the monsters (I'm lookin at you worg!) have a lot of info, but that's true in almost any edition. 

But lets take the Griffon as an example. Here is all the flavor:



> GRIFFONS ARE FIERCE, MAJESTIC HUNTERS of the air. They make their nests in remote corners of the world and sometimes stray into the Feywild. There are many kinds of griffons, all of which have feathered wings, a sharp beak, taloned foreclaws, and the hindquarters of some nonflying beast. Griffon eggs are highly prized, for young griffons can be
> trained as mounts.
> 
> Griffons are difficult to tame, but stories tell of elves and eladrin who magically control griffons and ride them into battle. Hippogriffs, on the other hand, are easily ridden, even in combat. For that reason, they are the most common flying mount among the civilized races of the world.
> ...




You can't honestly tell me that's not a decent sized chunk of flavor info.

There's tons of stuff in there to get a DM's mind wondering.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 8, 2008)

resistor said:
			
		

> I've read through a friend's copy of the books, and played in a 4 hour demo today.  Here are my thoughts based on those:
> 
> - Non-caster at-will powers are silly.  When the fighter have five different abilities that all boil down to "I smack him with my sword," the choice between them becomes purely mechanical, not thematic or flavorful.  I thought it worked OK for casters where there was signficant variation between the powers, but not for melee oriented classes.



Cleaving through your enemies and using a shield bash to throw them back are thematically and mechanically the same? 



> - Aggro as a major concept was and is my least favorite thing in MMOs.  Nothing's more boring than playing the character whose only purpose is to get hit.



So, what does this have to do with 4E? The Fighters purpose seems to hit people that try to ignore him so hard that they reconsider.



> - I agree with most of the earlier comments about it making world-building harder.



I know that this comment basically came from one of the designers, but I am still not convinced it is true. I felt a certain "spark of imagination" hitting me when I read the preview books and the core rules. Maybe time will tell if that's actually true. 



> - I HATE the new alignment system.  Either keep it as it was, or get rid of it completely (and i'll just add my preferred version, the previous one, back in).
> - I really liked the 3e warlock, but the new one is awful.  Curses!?





> - Warlord.  I hated the concept in MMOs too.



Cool, such classes are already out there? Can you cite a good example (preferably one without monthly cost. I am already paying for a fitness center I barely visit, but definitely should visit more often...)



> - Lack of monster fluff in the MM the worst thing since sliced kobold droppings
> - The layout of powers in the PHB reminds me a lot of the manual for the copy of Civilization (2?) that I had a while ago that listed all the techs in the game.  Not inherently a bad thing, but the color-coded boxes give me a real computer-game-manual vibe.



They still do such manuals? Since the days of Descent 2, I became more and more disappointed in the computer game manuals...
Now, T.F.X, that was a great manual!


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 9, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 4e is the edition where Greedo shot first.





You win forever.


----------



## noretoc (Jun 9, 2008)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that a great deal of the complaints about 4e leveled here are the same ones that a lot of us fans of older editions had about 3e.  In fact, I'd say the vast majority are the same.  Combat is too clunky.  PCs are now nigh-invulnerable superheroes.  Magic is too different.  Monsters are just bundles of stats.  It feels like a video game.  Too much arbitrary change.
> 
> I don't mock; it's just that it's very interesting.  I've got this weird sense of _deja vu_, I guess.
> 
> With that said, those are all my arguments about 4e.  That, plus it is effectively not *D&D* any more.  Not for me.  And I'd still like an explanation why Greyhawk was swept under the rug.  I mean, seriously.




I just want to say that my gripe when 3rd came out, was the reliance on magic items and how it got to be more like a video game, with all the buff spells.  The only real house rules I have are to reduce the "all adventurers have gauntlets of str/dex/wiz etc so your mage is walking around with 17 str" (eventhough he was built with a 9 str).  After playing 3rd for  awhile, I found that I could really control this, by limiting magic, and adjusting bad guys.  

Well, now here comes fourth, where they kicked it up by five notches and not only have thoes items but turned thoes thing to powers that everyone can have.  Noe instead of normal people growing and learning about the world around them, and earning thier place, we have the justice league right out of the womb.  Instant gratification.  Apparently that is what people want these day though.  They don't want to struggle and earn thier power, they want to be given it from the get go.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2008)

After examining the Core 3 for a couple of days now, I'd have to say that there are things I definitely like about the game...but many more that I don't.

As a DM examining the game, I feel like a guy who asked for a longsword and was given safety scissors and a pat on the head.  Some of the options I expected from previous editions' DMGs are simply absent (as far as I can tell)- like some kind of hint on how to do Magic items that aren't listed in the Core.

As a player examining the game, I feel like my ferocious attack dog has been returned to the age of a puppy.  3.X's multiclassing rules were the most flexible ever in D&D history, and 4Ed now gives us some of the weakest.

Is 4Ed streamlined and easy to learn?  Yes.

That just makes it a grilled cheese sandwich next to 3.X's cornucopia of options.

I'm sure some of what I miss will be introduced in future releases, but the very mechanics of the game preclude even the possibility of the return some of my favorites.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that I may wind up playing 4Ed- I've played many games I don't like just for the camaraderie of gaming with people I like- but I'm damn sure I'll never DM this incarnation of D&D.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Jun 9, 2008)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Speaking solely (likely so) for myself, it isn't so much "ecologies" - in my thinking "ecologies" aren't separate blocks of text, but cool stuff in the overall description.
> 
> The new MM is lacking those.  For example, here's the new MM entry on the Sauhagin:
> 
> ...




That's just the opening paragraph.
You "forgot" the "Sahuagin Lore" section, which has more info.

Geoff.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 9, 2008)

PHB Chapter-by-Chapter Hate-review:

1
An Inflated Point-buy system

2
Half Elves - what is special here?  Why do you exist instead of half Dragonborn or half Dwarfs?

3
A class called "Ranger" that really should be termed a Scout or Skirmisher.

4
History is wildly vague.

5
"Underfoot" feat prereq should be Small + Acrobatics training rather than Halfling + Acrobatics training

6
Spiked Chain, even as simply a more accurate Glaive, is a stupid weapon.
Ugly blank spot under Superior Weapons- Should have designed the table to have Improvised Melee shifted under that.

7
No extended Dim light from a Bright source

8
3 characters arranged in a triangle don't count as "Flanking"

9
Needs to be a higher-level Gentle Repose subset and a "Healing Zone".


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 9, 2008)

I agree with a lot that has been said.  Now some things that haven't been said:

Nothing is permanent.  Medusas no longer turn you into stone; or rather, you magically turn OUT of stone once combat is over.  In fact, that's how combat works - each bit of combat is it's own withdrawn thing completely unconnected to everything else in the game.

Maze.  Oh god, maze.  See sig for more.

The lack of identify is a sore spot for me.  It just screams of dumbing things down.  "We found identifying things could sometimes be challenging, so we removed that!"

Really, that above covers a lot of my problems with 4e.  There's a sense of "We didn't think x was fun.  It's gone now."  The problem is, they just removed something that other people did find fun.  They didn't made it a side bit, or "If you like x, you could y instead."  They just got rid of it.

Someone else here used the phrase "Going to a doctor for a sore toe and they cut off your foot."  That really hits a lot of my thoughts on 4e.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2008)

I was examining the "monsters" as PCs options as presented in the MM and found something else to be annoyed about.

The Minotaur, despite being 50-100lbs heavier and 9-11" taller than Dragonborn (on average) still receive the same +2Str mod.

4Ed is weak and watered down gaming.  It may be fun to play, but its not D&D to me.

Perhaps I'll start calling it NerfEd D&D.


----------



## Felix (Jun 9, 2008)

I've just read the Ken Troop thread over on the WotC boards, and was chuckling the whole time. I cannot imagine a worse way for WotC to shoot themselves in the foot than to utterly fail to deliver the most heavily hyped service of the edition.

I wasn't going to switch to 4e anyway, but it amuses me that Wizards can be so consistently and staggeringly incompetent with regard to digital support software. Heads really ought to roll for this gaff. Or rather, heads should have rolled 9 months ago when they (should have) realized they'd not be getting it finished on-time.


----------



## resistor (Jun 9, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Cleaving through your enemies and using a shield bash to throw them back are thematically and mechanically the same?




First, I said thematically.  There was certainly mechanical variation.  My issue was that that was the ONLY difference.

No, cleave and shield bash were ok.  I still don't know how a reaping strike differs from just, y'know, hitting them with your sword.  It actually seemed worse, to me, with the rogue, at least in the demo game.  All of his powers seemed to amount to "I be sneaky to hit them harder."  I know he was using two or three different ones, but honestly I could only tell them apart by their mechanical effects.



> So, what does this have to do with 4E? The Fighters purpose seems to hit people that try to ignore him so hard that they reconsider.




In games that feature aggro, the purpose of "tank" characters is to get all the monsters to attack them, so everyone else can shoot/blast/kill them w/o being attacked.  The fighter's "convince them not to attack anyone else" powers push a similar strategy.



> I know that this comment basically came from one of the designers, but I am still not convinced it is true. I felt a certain "spark of imagination" hitting me when I read the preview books and the core rules. Maybe time will tell if that's actually true.




I think the real issue is deeper: 4e makes simulationist play, or play with strong simulationist tendencies harder, by virtue of applying a separate ruleset to PCs as to non-characters.  A lot a people who are into "detailed" world building have a simulationist streak, so this ticks them off.



> Cool, such classes are already out there? Can you cite a good example (preferably one without monthly cost. I am already paying for a fitness center I barely visit, but definitely should visit more often...)




Yes.  See the Captain in Lord of the Rings Online.  For one without a monthly fee, see the Paragon in Guild Wars: Nightfall.



> They still do such manuals? Since the days of Descent 2, I became more and more disappointed in the computer game manuals...
> Now, T.F.X, that was a great manual!




Unfortunately, not so much.  I think such things might still be available if you get the "collector's edition" sets.  Those usually include more detailed game guides/manuals and poster maps, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2008)

> I think the real issue is deeper: 4e makes simulationist play, or play with strong simulationist tendencies harder, by virtue of applying a separate ruleset to PCs as to non-characters. A lot a people who are into "detailed" world building have a simulationist streak, so this ticks them off.




QFT.

When I started realizing this, I had to stop reading the game for a while- I was grinding my teeth.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 9, 2008)

noretoc said:
			
		

> I just want to say that my gripe when 3rd came out, was the reliance on magic items and how it got to be more like a video game, with all the buff spells.  The only real house rules I have are to reduce the "all adventurers have gauntlets of str/dex/wiz etc so your mage is walking around with 17 str" (eventhough he was built with a 9 str).  After playing 3rd for  awhile, I found that I could really control this, by limiting magic, and adjusting bad guys.
> 
> Well, now here comes fourth, where they kicked it up by five notches and not only have thoes items but turned thoes thing to powers that everyone can have.  Noe instead of normal people growing and learning about the world around them, and earning thier place, we have the justice league right out of the womb.  Instant gratification.  Apparently that is what people want these day though.  They don't want to struggle and earn thier power, they want to be given it from the get go.





Yeah, WOTC got rid of the magic item issue by just making the players automatically more powerful from built in mechanics that the DM cannot get rid of without changing the basic rules of the game.

These guys are professionals, right?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> The lack of identify is a sore spot for me.  It just screams of dumbing things down.  "We found identifying things could sometimes be challenging, so we removed that!"



D&D is a game in which one of the main aims of play is to find and use magic items. Most people enjoy the finding bit - if you play D&D, you like a good combat - but what is added to the play experience by the identification requirement?

Or, to put it another way, what is non-dumb (intelligent?) about playing a game of finding and using items, but having the game make it hard to use those items properly once you've found them? Adversity in a roleplaying game isn't meant to be real adversity - that's what life is for - it's meant to be imaginary adversity which it is fun to roleplay out. How many people like roleplaying an assayer?



			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> The problem is, they just removed something that other people did find fun.  They didn't made it a side bit, or "If you like x, you could y instead."  They just got rid of it.



Like all rules systems, some things are in there and others are not. Now the game is fun for those who didn't like Identify. I assume that WoTC believes that they are the majority. I think that WoTC are right about this.



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> Yeah, WOTC got rid of the magic item issue by just making the players automatically more powerful from built in mechanics that the DM cannot get rid of without changing the basic rules of the game.



Your criticism makes no sense to me. Yes, in 4e the players get more powerful, but this is because the changs to the game's mechanics of character build and action resolution give the players more narrative control. Why is this a bad thing?

It's also perhaps true that low-level PCs get more powerful because those same changes make them less likely to die on a single unlucky dice roll. Why is this a bad thing?

And those who don't like the flavour of traditional D&D magic items can easily strip it out in a mechanically consistent fashion. Why is this a bad thing?

Is there anyone whose objection to magic items in 3E was not a flavour one, but rather that it made it too easy for _the players_ to have fun? How can a game make it too easy to have fun? That's the raison d'etre of a game!


----------



## Pinotage (Jun 9, 2008)

noretoc said:
			
		

> Noe instead of normal people growing and learning about the world around them, and earning thier place, we have the justice league right out of the womb.  Instant gratification.  Apparently that is what people want these day though.  They don't want to struggle and earn thier power, they want to be given it from the get go.




This is one of the things that I've been wondering about with regard to 4e. 4e is very 'heroic'. Gone are the ordinary people growing up and learning to fight and becoming heroes. This is about kicking the bad guy right from the start. It's also very fantastical. Magical powers have unlimited use, etc. You can't model worlds like Lord of the Rings with a game system that relies on superheroes. I guess I don't like the idea that 4e can't be low magic.

Pinotage


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 9, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> You can't model worlds like Lord of the Rings with a game system that relies on superheroes. I guess I don't like the idea that 4e can't be low magic.
> 
> Pinotage



You can. But don't use the D&D arcane or divine classes. That's also true for 3E. Gandalf never fires a magic missile or a fireball. Nor does he Summon Monsters, cast Dispel Magic, Invisibility or Enlarge Person. He might also not be a "mage" in the first place, considering his heritage, but he still looks and feels like a mage. But whatever he is, D&D seems to fail at modelling him with the traditional rules. 4E and Unearthed Arcana (3e) at least have rituals/incantations that might allow you to replicate the feel.

The martial classes work fine for LotR, at least Aragon, Legolas, Gimli and others. They don't work so well for the Hobbits - but did any of the Hobbits give you the feeling they had any of the following abilities:
- Sneak Attack
- Heavy Armor Proficiency
- Any of the fighter bonus feats like Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Dodge?

Maybe I should be sad that 4E didn't "improve" on that.
But honestly, I don't feel so. Running a kind of "0"-level character is fun maybe once. But I wouldn't do it more often. And it's not neccessarily a nice play experience either. If you'd model LotR, you either have a vast power discrepancy between different PCs, or you had the PCs accomponied by DMPCs that take all the spot-light and rescue the Hobbit PCs. The reverse might work a lot better (and does in 4E) - the Hobbits are NPCs (possibly minions?) they have to protect, starting as  kind of follower and slowly turning into cohorts. And maybe at some point, you'd "spin off" the groups and have the PCs run the former NPCs as fully fledged (lower level) PCs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> D&D is a game in which one of the main aims of play is to find and use magic items. Most people enjoy the finding bit - if you play D&D, you like a good combat - but what is added to the play experience by the identification requirement?





Say instead that D&D is a game in which one of the main aims of play is discovery in a danger-rich environment, and the question answers itself.  Identification includes additional discovery, as well as additional danger.  It also helps to make magic seem "magical" (i.e., the word "occult" means "hidden", not "overt").

RC

EDIT:  BTW, what happened to all the mod comments about this being a thread to complain about 4e, rather than to defend it?  I understand that some folks are really happy with the new edition, but my understanding is that there are other threads for pro-4e feelings, or to defend the Greedo-Shooting-First that is 4e.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 9, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You can. But don't use the D&D arcane or divine classes. That's also true for 3E. Gandalf never fires a magic missile or a fireball.




In fact, Gandalf casts both fireballs and lightning bolts in The Hobbit, though you could claim the fireball was the druidic produce flame instead.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 9, 2008)

The hobbits on LotR weren't PCs.  Who wants to play some that lets everyone else fight, nearly die or get kidknapped when you do try to fight, etc?

Who says PCs have always been super heroes?  Let me tell you, it sure is easier to have a PC with an interesting background, whereas before, if you were a battle-hardened soldier in older D&D versions, level 1 made little sense.

PCs are meant to be important and leaders in whatever it is they did or do.  D&D is meant to be a heoric game, and the designers have said from day one that they were extending the sweet spot, which they did quite well.

That said, I'll miss low level incompetence.  I always found low levels in D&D fun to DM and play.  But I have no problems with 4e's way of handling this.

OTOH, one thing I hate about 4e: it's release has all but crippled this site...


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 9, 2008)

As would be expected I really do not like 4e.

I had initially hoped it would clarify and improve things.  But instead it has changed the game so much it no longer resembles D&D.  Calling a pile of crap a rose does not make it other than what it is, the symbol is not the thing.  The thing that has the label 4e D&D on it is very different fantasy game using the label and goodwill to foist itself on people as something it is not.  It's not a bad game but they should have released it as a different game instead of pretending it's D&D.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 10, 2008)

Agamon said:
			
		

> The hobbits on LotR weren't PCs.  Who wants to play some that lets everyone else fight, nearly die or get kidknapped when you do try to fight, etc?
> 
> Who says PCs have always been super heroes?  Let me tell you, it sure is easier to have a PC with an interesting background, whereas before, if you were a battle-hardened soldier in older D&D versions, level 1 made little sense.




If you're starting at level one, you aren't a battle-hardened soldier.  That's how the game works.

You say "Hey, DM, I want to make an experienced veteran."  Then when he says "Well, we're starting at level one," you say "Ok, nevermind, that character wouldn't really make sense.  I'll make a new one."

Now, if the DM said "That's cool, we're starting at level 7," you'd say "Righteous, my character concept works."

But if the character doesn't work, it _doesn't work_.  Complaining you can't be a battle-hardened veteran at level one is about as logical (or illogical) as complaining that you can't be a half-beholder rogue.  Sometimes, your character concept doesn't work.  That's not a flaw in the game.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 10, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> If you're starting at level one, you aren't a battle-hardened soldier.  That's how the game works.




The funny part about this claim is the level-title given to 1st-level fighters back in 1st edition: Veteran.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 10, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The funny part about this claim is the level-title given to 1st-level fighters back in 1st edition: Veteran.




I don't understand the complaint.....I've heard it before as well.  Even a 1st lvl Fighter is still better than most of the commoner classes.  A 2nd level Fighter, even, would be equivalent to highly trained shock troops.

Banshee


----------



## billd91 (Jun 10, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The funny part about this claim is the level-title given to 1st-level fighters back in 1st edition: Veteran.




Well, when you consider everyone who wasn't a leveled character class was a 0-level character... yes, a 1st level fighter was a comparative veteran.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 10, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Sometimes, your character concept doesn't work.  That's not a flaw in the game.




Bingo.  One could state the same case for anyone wanting to make a non-heroic loser for 4e.


----------



## Felix (Jun 10, 2008)

Agamon said:
			
		

> Bingo.  One could state the same case for anyone wanting to make a non-heroic loser for 4e.



Oh. Ok. So player characters in grim and gritty settings are losers. Thanks for that. Have fun playing Ch4mpions.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 10, 2008)

Agamon said:
			
		

> Bingo.  One could state the same case for anyone wanting to make a non-heroic loser for 4e.




3.5 let you start off at a level higher then 1.

4e...uh...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 10, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Like all rules systems, some things are in there and others are not. Now the game is fun for those who didn't like Identify. I assume that WoTC believes that they are the majority. I think that WoTC are right about this.




Going to have to go ahead and agree with this 100%.


----------



## sinecure (Jun 10, 2008)

I think this is what you get when you base your marketing strategy on "core rules".  Or what I like to call, "Only we can write balanced rules.  You shouldn't bother".

WotC should publish a new magic system and new combat system in the next PHB.  To give options to those who find the current ones rather ridiculous.  

As it stands and think they plan to basically sell people permissions to their own imaginations.  I.e. "You can now use this power / feat /  skill / ability that you couldn't before".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 10, 2008)

About my idea that 4e is the edition where Greedo shot first:

The original Star Wars trilogy pushed the boundaries on special effects, but there is little doubt that some of those effects look dated by modern standards.  Like the remastered Star Trek TOS episodes, one can argue that digitally updating the effects of the original Star Wars trilogy allowed it to resonate with a whole new generation of viewers.  It also reminded older viewers of what Star Wars was like on the big screen…an important point considering the prequel trilogy Lucas was about to offer.

However, Lucas did not just _update_ the movies; he changed them.  Some of these changes were really cool….who didn’t like the first shot of Mos Eisley (before the cluttered street-level scenes) or seeing herds of banthas on Tatooine?  Who didn’t like seeing the dewlaps actually move?  Or a sense that the Death Star was packed with more storm troopers than Lucas’ budget for extras/costumes allowed?

Yet, the original Star Wars trilogy had critics.  Some of those critics argued that Han Solo wasn’t really a good guy…look at what he did to Greedo.  And they said Star Wars wasn’t really a sci fi movie because of the Force, which was clearly mystical in nature.  It also had fans who examined the corner cases of the movies…things that weren’t really all that important to the stories, or were implied, like the background of Boba Fett or what the wampa really looked like.  

And Lucas responded.  Forget that Han Solo wasn’t _supposed to be_ a good guy when Obi Wan and Luke meet him.  Now Greedo shoots first.  Forget that we don’t see the wampa clearly in Empire because it was more effective to not see the wampa, now we see the wampa all too well.  The wampa and Boba Fett were cool because they were mysterious unknowns.  Now they are not unknown, and they are considerably less cool.  Similarly, midi-chlorians as an explanation for the Force is not only lame, but (because there is no non-mystical explanation for how the midi-chlorians work) it doesn’t solve the problem Lucas sought to address.

Before releasing 3.0, WotC performed a massive poll to find out what people liked about D&D.  Well, one of the things people enjoy is finding cool magic items, figuring out what they do, and using them.  Of course, people also complained that they didn’t find all the cool items that they wanted, and that it was hard to figure out what they did – sometimes, too, it had negative consequences.  So, in 3.0, WotC made sure that player characters could potentially _make_ any item in the book.  They also made it easier to identify items.  Problem solved….or so they thought.  

Yet this one decision is at the heart of almost all the problems 3.x has.  Because of the ease of getting any given magic item, no item seems really special.  The DM is not encouraged to create new items, because creating new items means determining how that item can be created.  Because characters have all the specific items needed, they maximize their buffs.  Because characters have all the specific items needed, they carry a golf bag of items.  Because characters have all the specific items needed, the game requires a by-level baseline taking this into account, creating a level disparity that can cause difficulties if you want to play in a lower-magic environment.  The expectation that every character can (and should) have optimized buffs and items also means that the numbers escalate sooner and higher than they should, making high-level 3.x the pain in the ass that it is.  This escalation is written into monsters, and into classes, because a certain level of optimized magic is expected.

Rolling these “item powers” into characters doesn’t solve the problem, and it opens up a whole host of new problems.  

There are other things that feed into these problems, of course, but 3.x, like the reimagined Star Wars movies, demonstrates amply what happens when you try to fix “problems” that don’t exist, or when you don’t really understand why things worked (or did not work) before.  Simply because folks ask to see the wampa doesn’t mean that you should include those shots.  Simply because folks point out that Han shot first doesn’t mean that you should make Greedo shoot first.  Changing these things undoes good design.

4e is even more like the reimagined Star Wars movies than 3e.  As with Lucas’s “new vision”, things are changed for no better purpose than to change them.  To add “cool” things here and there that end up far less cool than Lucas (or WotC) imagined, and detract from the story (or gameplay).

Of course, Lucas could be accused of repackaging old merchandise with the intent of reselling it to folks who already had perfectly good prints of the trilogy.  WotC cannot be accused of the same.  After all, 3e had Attacks of Opportunity and five foot steps, and 4e has Opportunity attacks and one-square slides.  No similarities there at all.    


RC


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 10, 2008)

Hey Raven, do you mind being copypasta'd on that there post in my 'blog tonite?


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 10, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> About my idea that 4e is the edition where Greedo shot first:
> 
> The original Star Wars trilogy pushed the boundaries on special effects, but there is little doubt that some of those effects look dated by modern standards.  Like the remastered Star Trek TOS episodes, one can argue that digitally updating the effects of the original Star Wars trilogy allowed it to resonate with a whole new generation of viewers.  It also reminded older viewers of what Star Wars was like on the big screen…an important point considering the prequel trilogy Lucas was about to offer.
> 
> ...



Very good analogy I wish i had thought of it. It's dead on.  Whenever anyone asks me about 4e, I tell them there are some things I like, and then there are things that they just changed to change.  Some of which made no sense from a total conceptual point of view, it just is "cool".


----------



## Scribble (Jun 10, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> About my idea that 4e is the edition where Greedo shot first:




Catchy phrase... but I prefer:

od&d-2e = Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

3e = Blade Runner

4e = Blade Runner Director's Cut.



> 4e is even more like the reimagined Star Wars movies than 3e.  As with Lucas’s “new vision”, things are changed for no better purpose than to change them.  To add “cool” things here and there that end up far less cool than Lucas (or WotC) imagined, and detract from the story (or gameplay).




Examples?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 10, 2008)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Hey Raven, do you mind being copypasta'd on that there post in my 'blog tonite?




Feel free.

RC


----------



## noretoc (Jun 11, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> It's also perhaps true that low-level PCs get more powerful because those same changes make them less likely to die on a single unlucky dice roll. Why is this a bad thing?




Because for some people playing a character that is afraid to take that one hit, so they look for ways to avoid it IS fun.



> So, what does this have to do with 4E? The Fighters purpose seems to hit people that try to ignore him so hard that they reconsider.




I don't know who said this, but it is silly.  Let me put myself in the place of my character (The whole object of a RPG in my opinion). I get into a fight.  A big dude is involved.  I try to get away from him, and he "hits me so hard I reconcider" and go after him.  Not so much.  If he hits me that hard, I fracking run the hell away from him, and find somone easier to kill.  Aggro is not rational, even in the context of a fantasy RPG.  Could it work on some people, yea, thoes who have berserker traits, but should it work on the average mo.  Heck no.  Maybe 4ed bad guys never flee.  (that would explain minions, heck if I got into a battle and me and my five friends knew one hit would kill us, would we stick around to confuse the opponent and make time for our leader??  hell no, all you'd see is my minion arse running the hell outta there.  )


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 11, 2008)

noretoc said:
			
		

> I get into a fight.  A big dude is involved.  I try to get away from him, and he "hits me so hard I reconcider" and go after him.  Not so much.  If he hits me that hard, I fracking run the hell away from him, and find somone easier to kill.




You mean, you try to run away and get a bigger helping of ass-whooping and can't actually get away because he's able to restrict your movement, as well as make it more difficult for you to attack that easier-to-kill target, which also provokes reprisals from the big dude.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 11, 2008)

Raven, I am _so_ using that, should you grant permission.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 11, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You mean, you try to run away and get a bigger helping of ass-whooping and can't actually get away because he's able to restrict your movement, as well as make it more difficult for you to attack that easier-to-kill target, which also provokes reprisals from the big dude.




Thats part of the problem-he is either grappling me to do this or he is a cleric or wizard using a sword and pretending to be a fighter. Sticky superpowers are BS. Just call him a warmage and be done with it.


----------



## noretoc (Jun 11, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You mean, you try to run away and get a bigger helping of ass-whooping and can't actually get away because he's able to restrict your movement, as well as make it more difficult for you to attack that easier-to-kill target, which also provokes reprisals from the big dude.




Well, the sentence I quoted was trying to describe an in-game reason how the mark system was plausable.  My reply was to show how the in-game reason didn't work.  All you did here was make the point even stronger.  How in game does that big guy restrict my movement, and hurt me more when I go after someone else?  He's not grabbing me. (That would be a grapple).  He isnt walking over to me and slapping me when I hit the other person, since the mark can be at a range (unless he has 30 foot arms).  If I really want to find reason for how a mark works, I could, but that wasn't my point.  My point was to show why THAT explanation didn't work.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2008)

noretoc said:
			
		

> if I got into a battle and me and my five friends knew one hit would kill us, would we stick around to confuse the opponent and make time for our leader??  hell no, all you'd see is my minion arse running the hell outta there.



The "1 hit point" entry on minions is something that the GM knows, and perhaps that the players know. It is not something that the imaginary people in the gameworld know.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 11, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> The "1 hit point" entry on minions is something that the GM knows, and perhaps that the players know. It is not something that the imaginary people in the gameworld know.




Honestly, I think that's one of the issues with 4e.  The further divorce of mechanics and how they actually reflect in game.  It's not a good thing when more and more questions need to be answered with "Just because."


----------



## noretoc (Jun 11, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> The "1 hit point" entry on minions is something that the GM knows, and perhaps that the players know. It is not something that the imaginary people in the gameworld know.




So all the minions in the world have delusions of grandeur?  They think they are bad (As in kick butt bad) when all they are is bad (as in cant fight bad).  ALL of them?  What makes a minion a minion then.  If they think they are strong enough to kill the pc, then why are they taking crap from the non-minon bad guy?  What did he do to get to have full hp, that they didn't.  Is it just because they have the red shirt on?  

I know that that is the way the game works, but that is one of my problems with the game.  There is too much that is done for mechanics sake.  I could probably justify anything if I really had to, or find a reason for it but I don't want to play a game where I have to.  The characters that my players play should be thinking...  "Why are these guys so easy to kill?  Why do they keep coming and dying"  Luckily I have players that will have thier characters wonder things like that, because that is how we role-play.  We try to put ourselves and our characters places and look for things that don't make sense.  Then figure out why in game.  It makes great stories.  (I love my players).

I can see the order of the stick strip now.

Kobold Elite: Attack
Kobold Minion: Attack?  That guy just killed like twenty of us
Kobold Elite: That is ok, you were made to attack "in droves and go down fast"
Kobold Minion: Go down fast?  What do you mean???  I was born in the same clutch you were.  We have the same mom.
Kobold Elite: But I am an elite, I will not die so easy.
Kobold Minion: How did you get to be Elite.  Why you.  I always knew mom liked you best.  
Kobold Elite: Attack!
Kobold Minion: F%^& you, you attack, I'm getting out of here. 
Kobold Elite: But you are my Shock troopers
Kobold Minion: The only thing I'm shocked at is that my other 20 brother were dumb enough to run up there after the first ten got killed.  I'm outta here, I'm gonna go open up a shop somewhere, store keepers may not have HP, but the PC cant attack them either.


----------



## Khuxan (Jun 11, 2008)

I like 4E, but I feel a bit disillusioned by its release. I suppose I had unreasonably expected it to be perfect. Here are seven things I don't like about the new edition:

*Skill challenges* don't seem to work.
*Feats* are very limited, mainly because of poorly thought-out ability score requirements and because what could be one feat became dozens (e.g. the Epic weapon group feats that double the crit range).
*Multiclassing* looks dreadful and tacked on. I would've preferred nothing and the promise of something coming in the future.
*Monster flavour* has become much less inspired - it really disappointed me to see Maruts reduced to 'extraplanar mercenaries': just like archons, yugoloths, etc., etc. 
*Restricted classes,* like how most rogue powers are limited to very specific weapons.
*Few animals* in the MM. 
*The inevitable errors and misprints,* like the shonky _cascade of blades_.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 11, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Your criticism makes no sense to me. Yes, in 4e the players get more powerful, but this is because the changs to the game's mechanics of character build and action resolution give the players more narrative control. Why is this a bad thing?
> 
> It's also perhaps true that low-level PCs get more powerful because those same changes make them less likely to die on a single unlucky dice roll. Why is this a bad thing?
> 
> ...




It doesn't matter, all it means is I am better off staying with the game system I am playing. It does everything I want it to do, and I like how it goes about doing it. 4E has nothing to offer that is better than what I am doing now, and it gives me a lot of things I don't like, which I would have to change. 

So I'll look 4E over and just take the ideas I like and integrate them into the game I have. That is much easier, and cheaper, than buying 4E and making it into a game I would like.

I am not into the "Its new, so its cool!" crowd. I am in the "Why bother? I am very happy with what I have." group.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2008)

noretoc said:
			
		

> So all the minions in the world have delusions of grandeur?  They think they are bad (As in kick butt bad) when all they are is bad (as in cant fight bad).  ALL of them?  What makes a minion a minion then.  If they think they are strong enough to kill the pc, then why are they taking crap from the non-minon bad guy?  What did he do to get to have full hp, that they didn't.  Is it just because they have the red shirt on?



Does the PC whose player rolls 1s all night have delusions of grandeur? Some people are lucky, others are not. All that the "1 hp" entry on the Minion NPC record tells us is that this monster dies to the first hit from a member of the PC's party. It tells us nothing else about the cause of that unhappy destiny. What narrative explanation (if any) you want to give for the unluck of minions in combat is up to you, just as it is up to the player to explain why his or her PC is being so unlucky.



			
				noretoc said:
			
		

> The characters that my players play should be thinking...  "Why are these guys so easy to kill?  Why do they keep coming and dying"



The answer to (1) would be either "Because we're so good" or else "Because they're so unlucky". The answer to (2) would be whatever answer explains that for monsters in your game. Afterall, most of the non-minions also die in the end, but they keep coming. Whatever story you tell about them, tell it about the minions too.



			
				noretoc said:
			
		

> There is too much that is done for mechanics sake.  I could probably justify anything if I really had to, or find a reason for it but I don't want to play a game where I have to.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> We try to put ourselves and our characters places and look for things that don't make sense.  Then figure out why in game.  It makes great stories.



Fine. You don't want to play a narrativist RPG. It doesn't follow that 4e is badly designed. 



			
				noretoc said:
			
		

> I can see the order of the stick strip now.



The Order of the Stick is a parody, generated by treating as ingame phenomena what are in fact metagame phenomena. If you think that you can't play a metagame heavy game without doing by inadvertance what The Order of the Stick does for deliberate humour, then 4e may not be the game for you.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think that's one of the issues with 4e.  The further divorce of mechanics and how they actually reflect in game.  It's not a good thing when more and more questions need to be answered with "Just because."



Who said "Just because"? I didn't. Why do Minions have 1 hit point? Because that delivers a desired play experience! If you don't want to play that sort of game, Rolemaster and Runequest are still very much in print.

And I have to ask - are you familiar with games like The Riddle of Steel, HeroWars/Quest or The Dying Earth, all of which have robust metagame mechanics comparable to 4e's treatment of hit points, healing surges, minions and so on?

Assuming that you are, then the answer to the question "How do I narratate a minoin, or the use of a healing urge?" is "The same as you would narrate a contest in HeroWars, or The Dying Earth, or the same way you would narrate a use of Spiritual Attributes in TRoS". If you are not familiar with those games, then I'm less surprised that you seem not to understand the design logic of 4e.

Of course I am not arguing that you should _like_ 4e. I understand the design logic of Tunnels & Trolls, of Classic Traveller, and of I Kill Puppies for Satan, but I have no real desire to play any of them. But I don't dismiss their design by saying it's "Just because." That's nonsense. And it's the nonsense that I object to.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 11, 2008)

Wasn't this thread supposed to be for saying why we DON'T like 4e?  Not supporting it?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Wasn't this thread supposed to be for saying why we DON'T like 4e?  Not supporting it?



Fair enough.


----------



## DandD (Jun 11, 2008)

Meh, seeing as how the non-4th edition forumites get to creep into the 4th edition message boards to complain about 4th edition all the time, the 4th edition enthusiasts creeping back into anti-4th edition threads is only a natural thing. Laws of conservation and such. 
Also, it's always the same person anyways. It's always the same faces of pro-4th editioners butting head with anti-4th editioners, and vice-versa. 
As long as no insults are hurled across the boards, the moderators won't interfere.


----------



## Tsyr (Jun 11, 2008)

Someone else said it earlier better, but it boils down to "I can't play the DnD campaign I've played for over a decade without more house rules than pre-packaged rules". The 2E-3E transition wasn't seamless, but few major fundamental assumptions changed... And when they did, it was adding things, that I could chose to ignore or not. I didn't have to rewrite entire classes, re-create races, etc. Everything I needed was still there, there was just extra goodies that I could use or not as I saw fit.

I could point to other things, like flippantly changing things like core wheel cosmology or reinventing elves... And I don't mean re-inventing like "halflings lost weight", here. I could go into the death of part of my soul when I read the "agro rules". I could discuss the abomination that is the new monster manual, or how much I despise this or hate that, but really that's what it boils down to. 2E to 3E was a major change, but making the transition was mostly a matter of re-doing existing things with new rules. 4E doesn't have half the rules I would need to re-do an existing setting without massive, massive changes.

I guess if I wanted to sum up how I feel about 4E, is its like... a step backwards, it feels more like an RPG from a smaller publisher. It feels like the RPG that a company makes that has a system that works for it's setting, and a setting wrote around it's system, and that might be fine on it's own, and sure you can write your own setting for it's system, but the nature of it's system means that your setting is going to be similar to it's pre-assumed one.


----------



## noretoc (Jun 12, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Does the PC whose player rolls 1s all night have delusions of grandeur? Some people are lucky, others are not. All that the "1 hp" entry on the Minion NPC record tells us is that this monster dies to the first hit from a member of the PC's party. It tells us nothing else about the cause of that unhappy destiny. What narrative explanation (if any) you want to give for the unluck of minions in combat is up to you, just as it is up to the player to explain why his or her PC is being so unlucky.



so I say again, every minion in the word is unliucky.  Is there a god of minions who hates his followers?  Is there a curse on them?  Heck, I'll play a minion and go on a quest to lift it.  There is a difference between EVERY minion be klilled by a single shot, or a player rolling a few 1s,  Unless you mean you have players that roll 1s every roll.  I will not believe you.  Not with the amount of rolling you do in a 4ed game.  The work it would take to find a reason why minion are in the game that makes sense for the campaign world, are not wort the fun they bring in.




> The answer to (1) would be either "Because we're so good" or else "Because they're so unlucky". The answer to (2) would be whatever answer explains that for monsters in your game. Afterall, most of the non-minions also die in the end, but they keep coming. Whatever story you tell about them, tell it about the minions too.




Monsters in my game have varied reason for fighting till they die.  Again, we are not talking about just a single minded race, we are talking every minion of every race every where, world without end.  In my campaign orc run away when they lose the advantage of number, or see a bunch of thier dead tribemen.  But nor minions, according to the book.  They are there just to die...  



> Fine. You don't want to play a narrativist RPG. It doesn't follow that 4e is badly designed.



One, I play a narrative game.  I don't want to play one that break sense.  Two, I didn't say it was badly designed.  I am explaining what I don't like about it.



> snip
> 4e may not be the game for you.




That is the point of this whole thread.  Your the one who came in and started arguing.  What is it about 4ed people that take this personal.  No matter how many of us that don't like the game say it is probably a good fit for other people, and that it is fun for others, they still feel the need to defend why it should be fun for us too.  It is as if THEY made the game, and have to defend it to thier last breath.  Just relax, and realize that there are thoes of us that don't like it.  You can like it.  You can play it.  You can have fun with it.  I don't, and this thread is for me to share why with others who either do or don't.  

And come on my OoTS spoof was funny!!!


----------



## ironvyper (Jun 13, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Who said "Just because"? I didn't. Why do Minions have 1 hit point? Because that delivers a desired play experience! If you don't want to play that sort of game, Rolemaster and Runequest are still very much in print.
> 
> And I have to ask - are you familiar with games like The Riddle of Steel, HeroWars/Quest or The Dying Earth, all of which have robust metagame mechanics comparable to 4e's treatment of hit points, healing surges, minions and so on?





  Did'nt 3.5 sell more copies in an average week then all those games put together sold during their entire print run? Eventually even the fanbois are gonna realize that WoTC doesn't piss gold and crap diamonds and this big load they dropped on us with 4e isn't a "diamond that just needs to be polished". Its not something that the rest of fail to have the imagination to grasp....  It is in fact a big stinky turd just like those other games you mentioned were small stinky turds and all of us who don't like 4e have plenty of imagination, we just don't feel the need to waste it on a crappy game when theres several other perfectly good options available to us.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 13, 2008)

ironvyper said:
			
		

> Did'nt 3.5 sell more copies in an average week then all those games put together sold during their entire print run? Eventually even the fanbois are gonna realize that WoTC doesn't piss gold and crap diamonds and this big load they dropped on us with 4e isn't a "diamond that just needs to be polished". Its not something that the rest of fail to have the imagination to grasp....  It is in fact a big stinky turd just like those other games you mentioned were small stinky turds and all of us who don't like 4e have plenty of imagination, we just don't feel the need to waste it on a crappy game when theres several other perfectly good options available to us.




WOW.  I am not a 4E fanboi at all but that is a bit harsh. 4E is not my cup of tea for an ongoing fantasy game but even I wouldn't call it a turd. It does fine as a boardgame and some find it perfect for thier campaign so I think we can express our opinions here without being so disrespectful.


----------



## Felix (Jun 14, 2008)

ironvyper said:
			
		

> Did'nt 3.5 sell more copies in an average week then all those games put together sold during their entire print run? Eventually even the fanbois are gonna realize that WoTC doesn't piss gold and crap diamonds and this big load they dropped on us with 4e isn't a "diamond that just needs to be polished". Its not something that the rest of fail to have the imagination to grasp....  It is in fact a big stinky turd just like those other games you mentioned were small stinky turds and all of us who don't like 4e have plenty of imagination, we just don't feel the need to waste it on a crappy game when theres several other perfectly good options available to us.



Please do not give those of us who dislike aspects of 4e a bad name. This post does that unfortunately well. It is such a shame after noretoc's reasonable post explaining his displeasure with the 4e system.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 14, 2008)

noretoc said:
			
		

> I don't know who said this, but it is silly.  Let me put myself in the place of my character (The whole object of a RPG in my opinion). I get into a fight.  A big dude is involved.  I try to get away from him, and he "hits me so hard I reconcider" and go after him.  Not so much.  If he hits me that hard, I fracking run the hell away from him, and find somone easier to kill.  Aggro is not rational, even in the context of a fantasy RPG.  Could it work on some people, yea, thoes who have berserker traits, but should it work on the average mo.  Heck no.  Maybe 4ed bad guys never flee.  (that would explain minions, heck if I got into a battle and me and my five friends knew one hit would kill us, would we stick around to confuse the opponent and make time for our leader??  hell no, all you'd see is my minion arse running the hell outta there.  )




Good analogy.....I guess the Knight in 3.5 was the test case for the aggro mechanic.  I didn't like the class much then either.

So, you've got this big, powerful looking knight in heavy armour, with a big sword.  He salutes you, to challenge you to combat.  You're a sneaky, dastardly assassin.  Are you going to go attack him?  No....because you're a sneaky, dastardly assassin....you're smart enough to know that going up against that knight is not going to end in your favour.  So you go around him, and stab your blade into the guy standing behind him dressed in robes, waving a holy symbol around.

4E seems to look at it differently.

Banshee


----------



## Felon (Jun 14, 2008)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I have no time, no money, and no interest in the new edition, not even one hour to spend to go and get a look at it in the LGS. But...    I would like to hear from others how smart I am to remain away from it.
> 
> This thread is for those who are disappointed, angry, whatever negative feeling they got about the 3 new books.
> 
> Of course, this thread is NOT to begin a flame war, only to hear about those who don't like it and to know why. Obviously, lovers of the new game should better ignore this thread and read something else...



In no particular order:

1) In 4e, it seems that virtually every opponent is supposed to be susceptable to virtually everything a PC can throw at it. If you have an attack that slides a foe around, it works on a purple worm or colossus just as easily as it does a goblin. If you have a mind-affecting power, it works on mindless undead. If you have an attack that knocks a target prone, it works on oozes and swarms and other things to whom the term "prone" should be meaningless. And while we're on swarms, even the most particulate swarm can now be killed with a sword. 

Putting aside any debate about verisimilitude, there's the much more concrete matter of monsters not being able to do what they were intended to do. A purple worm is supposed to be this enormous, implacable thing--it makes players move, not vice-versa. Oozes and swarms are supposed to be formidable because their amorphous forms shrug off physical abuse, while zombies and skeletons from previous editions were only regarded as formidable because they could ignore crowd-control effects like charms and illusions. 

I don't accept the argument that this homogenization is a good idea because it's unacceptably "unfun" for a player to press a power's hotkey and find it doesn't work against a particular target. The aforementioned creatures have been in the game a long time, and in my experience there's not this huge sense of entitlement. Players didn't storm out the door in protest of having encountered a golem, rust monster, rakshasa or something else that their standard playbook didn't work against. Indeed, gamers have been conditioned by movies and books to accept the idea of encountering a monster that shrugs off conventional attacks. It's what makes monsters scary. The key to such creatures is using them in moderation, not making them homogeneous. 

2) I don't see the overall benefit of letting players manipulate what ability scores are used for their attacks and defenses. If that's going to be the design, then there ought to be some reward for investing in the ability scores that aren't the character's prime choice. I don't mind a rogue having a low INT and not suffering for it. I do mind a rogue wanting to be smart and not gaining an appreciable value for investing in a high INT.

3) Many powers display sloppy design elements. You should not have an attack that says "keep attacking until you miss". You should not be presented with a choice between an at-will power that lets you make two attacks and another at-will power that gives you only one attack at +2; one is hands-down better than the other and it doesn't take a math whiz to figure out which. And going back to my first issue, powers ought to have reasonable restrictions based on their effects.

4) Coin-toss saving throws biased in the PC's favor--even formidable opponents don't seem to impose saving throw penalties on the PC's. The eptiome of the designers' preferrence for simplicity over elegance--the club over the rapier.


----------



## Felon (Jun 14, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> \So, you've got this big, powerful looking knight in heavy armour, with a big sword.  He salutes you, to challenge you to combat.  You're a sneaky, dastardly assassin.  Are you going to go attack him?  No....because you're a sneaky, dastardly assassin....you're smart enough to know that going up against that knight is not going to end in your favour.  So you go around him, and stab your blade into the guy standing behind him dressed in robes, waving a holy symbol around.
> 
> 4E seems to look at it differently.



That's a good example of what I mentioned in my post above. Maybe a sneaky assassin shouldn't be affected by marking.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 14, 2008)

Obviously he isn't sneaky enough, the fighter saw him


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 14, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Good analogy.....I guess the Knight in 3.5 was the test case for the aggro mechanic.  I didn't like the class much then either.
> 
> So, you've got this big, powerful looking knight in heavy armour, with a big sword.  He salutes you, to challenge you to combat.  You're a sneaky, dastardly assassin.  Are you going to go attack him?  No....because you're a sneaky, dastardly assassin....you're smart enough to know that going up against that knight is not going to end in your favour.  So you go around him, and stab your blade into the guy standing behind him dressed in robes, waving a holy symbol around.
> 
> ...



No, it's not different, really. Just go around the fighter, take a shot from him, and kill your intented target. That's all. Marking is just "Attack of Opportunies Deluxe". It's not _Command_ or _Dominate Person_. 



> there's the much more concrete matter of monsters not being able to do what they were intended to do. A purple worm is supposed to be this enormous, implacable thing--it makes players move, not vice-versa. Oozes and swarms are supposed to be formidable because their amorphous forms shrug off physical abuse, while zombies and skeletons from previous editions were only regarded as formidable because they could ignore crowd-control effects like charms and illusions.



This is actually good criticism. It's also an example of choosing playability and "balance" over any kind of simulation/believability concerns. It's certainly possible to narrate all these aspects in a way to create satisfying results, but it's probably still a step more then if the rules just said "You can't push targets n size categories larger then you" or "skeletons are immune to charms" (though I think the latter is not really a problem in the believability sense. Both skeletons and charms or illusions are usually magic, and thus work in what ever way we want. The story reason for skeletons is to have (creepy) eternal guardins that fight singlemindedly against you.)


----------



## ironvyper (Jun 14, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> Please do not give those of us who dislike aspects of 4e a bad name. This post does that unfortunately well. It is such a shame after noretoc's reasonable post explaining his displeasure with the 4e system.




 All the reasonable stuff has been said, over and over, ad nauseum.  LOL you should pay more attention. 

  None of it is actually reasonable remember? We are afraid of change, or just dont understand the new paradigm and once we do we too will fall to our knees and worship at the idol of 4e because its so much better.......

   I suppose i'm bitter because i was  really looking forward to a 4th edition. Alot of the early stuff when it was just ideas sounded good to me.  Its the execution of those ideas that sucks. Like the guy before you said, its probably a perfectly good board game. Unfortunately that sucks in my opinion. 

   But in an effort to be reasonable and rationale, i thought about posting a list of my dislikes, problem was it was rediculously long. So instead I'll post a list of the couple of things i do like. 

  1.The new cosmology. I know it bothers some people but i never got into planescape so theres no dissapointment built into it. The new cosmology seems tighter simpler and more concise. I like the flavor of the new demons, devils, elementals and the shadowfell too. 

2. Vancian magic is dead. This was a horrible sacred cow that should have been slaughtered editions ago. better late then never though. They made wizards a little too limited and weak but its not too hard to take some of the rituals and just make them regular powers. 

3. Rituals. Another cool flavor aspect because anyone can do them. Also i like magic as rituals, its more of a throwback to the mythological and fantasy roots of magic so it feels more like magic to me. 

4. Gnomes and half-orcs are gone. The only way this could make me happier is if they were ground up in a giant blender and thrown into the sun instead of just taken out of th PHB. But at least its a start. 

     Other then that i guess if the entire equipment chapter, all the rules for magical items. the whole chapter on skills, and virtually all of the "kool powerzz" for the non-magical classes, and the multi-class rules were swapped out for 3rd edition rules then it would be a playable roleplaying game instead of a squad based game of warhammer.


----------



## Ambush Bug (Jun 14, 2008)

It's not like this thread needs another reply, but hey, venting is fun. The thing I like least about 4E, and the thing that will keep me from playing it as written, is that it tells me what style of game I should play. Not only does it needlessly define characters by their use in combat, it overdefines them into one of four arbitrary roles. Not every group needs or wants a rogue. Not every rogue wants to be good at picking locks or disarming traps. Not everybody likes dungeon crawls or minis or careful tactical combat. And yes, there are plenty of other games we can (and do) play.

The sad part is that if you strip away the surface layers of class/role from 4E and make a few alterations, you get a much more flexible game without any apparent loss of balance. Which means to me that the design team could have made a more flexible game based on their innovative mechanics - a game that would have appealed to a broader spectrum of people than the current one does. I don't mind change. I mind being told what kind of play experience I'm supposed to have.


----------



## Andor (Jun 14, 2008)

What do I dislike about 4e? Well I played my first game last night and my dice decided that since it was 4e, there was no need to roll above a 4. -_-


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 14, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> What do I dislike about 4e? Well I played my first game last night and my dice decided that since it was 4e, there was no need to roll above a 4. -_-



Did you happen to play a Cleric? 
In our first playtest after the DDXP, the Cleric players dice seemed to think similar. He "successfully" tested the new 3-Strike-Out Dying rule in the final encounter thanks to this...



> Not only does it needlessly define characters by their use in combat, it overdefines them into one of four arbitrary roles. Not every group needs or wants a rogue. Not every rogue wants to be good at picking locks or disarming traps.



You usually prefer class-less systems? 



> Not everybody likes dungeon crawls or minis or careful tactical combat. And yes, there are plenty of other games we can (and do) play.



That for sure is true.


----------



## Andor (Jun 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Did you happen to play a Cleric?
> In our first playtest after the DDXP, the Cleric players dice seemed to think similar. He "successfully" tested the new 3-Strike-Out Dying rule in the final encounter thanks to this...




No a rogue. Nothing like lining up the sneak attack, invoking the Infernal wrath and rolling a 2. Dammit! Action point! Roll a 3.


----------



## Aqua Vitae (Jun 15, 2008)

*Yes...*

Hi, Turanil.

First of all, I just wanted to say that I read your review of Troll Lords game system, Castles & Crusades.  I actually just purchased the PHB and M&T, having downloaded the "condensed" PDF and liked it.  I love 3.5, especially its multi-classing system, but I won't be going back to D&D in the foreseeable future.

The 4th edition of the game has left me with a sour taste in my mouth.  I have fantasies of sending a Demon Lord to brutally murder fledgling Dragonborn PCs in the most humiliating manner.

Seriously, I find its approach very distasteful.

The artwork, especially the cover artwork, I find sub-standard.  I don't like anime-style art for my fantasy games.  I was wholly unaware that the being on the cover of the MM was Orcus until I saw the entry.

The mult-classing system is horribly wanting.  It's not even a multi-classing system, in fact.  It's mult-dabbling.  The "fact" that the 3.5 system was broken is not a positive argument for 4E's rules.  Who cares if there are some DMs so permissive that they'd allow for a Troll Paladin/Cleric/Knight of the Chalice/Cavalier/Knight Protector?  There are IC and OOC mechanisms to prevent abuse, unless you're the sort of DM who sits perfectly quiet, allowing players to pour through every single book, drooling over every new feat or prestige class.

I won't ever be making the journey into 4E.

I am a DM no longer.  I...am...a...Castle Keeper!


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 15, 2008)

Castles are drafty and watch out for cobwebs.  Is Castle Keeper the medieval term for Maid?

I'm sorry, it's late and I have nothing to add.  I don't see the art as anime, and I really like that the dragon on the DMG is scrying the characters that appear on the PHB cover.  Orcus well...I knew it was him cuz that pic had turned up on the WotC site w/the Orcus preview I think.  Never really seen a lot of Orcus art over the years, but thought it was very cool they used him on the cover, knowing how many people have really enjoyed him over the years.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 15, 2008)

Aqua Vitae said:
			
		

> The mult-classing system is horribly wanting.  It's not even a multi-classing system, in fact.  It's mult-dabbling.  The "fact" that the 3.5 system was broken is not a positive argument for 4E's rules.  Who cares if there are some DMs so permissive that they'd allow for a Troll Paladin/Cleric/Knight of the Chalice/Cavalier/Knight Protector?  There are IC and OOC mechanisms to prevent abuse, unless you're the sort of DM who sits perfectly quiet, allowing players to pour through every single book, drooling over every new feat or prestige class.




I actually find that character interesting. It's very unlikely (and wholly epic), but PCs epitomize unlikeliness. There's only one in the entire world, and it's a PC.  It's not broken, it's "nonstandard". The fact that you want to murder all dragonborn kinda shows your bias in that regard. 

3.x multi rules ARE broken. It is a fact, if you want to acknowledge it or not. A bard3/monk4 is the same CR/EL as a barb4/fighter2. Seriously, give me a break. 

And if someone spends $30+ on a book it's kind of lame for the DM to just ban everything inside of it. There is a difference between "baninate" and "be a doormat" and "let your players use cool new stuff without actively trying to jack up your game".


----------



## rounser (Jun 15, 2008)

> The fact that you want to murder all dragonborn kinda shows your bias in that regard.



I'm with him on that one.  I just look at their ugly mugs in the artwork, think of the cynical, gimmicky, marketing reasons for their presence as a PC race, and want to send them on a one way trip to oblivion.

Imagining them all torn apart by Demogorgon or something I can relate to, but IMO would take too long as opposed to simply snapping them out of existence, and would require humouring the idea that they were there to begin with.  I save to disbelieve.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 15, 2008)

Um, I do know this is a criticsm thread but I would like to point out something...

Human bandits and guards are generally STRONGER than 1st level PCs (human bandits are 2nd level monsters while guards are 3rd level monsters)

I'm not sure how superheroic 4E PCs could be if they can't beat up the classic bandit with ease.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 15, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I'm with him on that one.  I just look at their ugly mugs in the artwork, think of the cynical, gimmicky, marketing reasons for their presence as a PC race, and want to send them on a one way trip to oblivion.



It has never been a good idea to give people what they actually might be interested in...


Imagine they had kept Gnomes:
"Oh, it's all marketing reason! There are so many old-schoolers who would just reject the lack of the Gnomes. They don't care what's good for the game, they only want to take money of the grognards!"


----------



## rounser (Jun 15, 2008)

> It has never been a good idea to give people what they actually might be interested in...



Yeah, well, people are wrong and tasteless on this one, IMO.  They really want to play actual dragons anyway, I'd assume, but WOTC decided that the game supporting non-humanoids as PCs would be too hard to support, so we get a compromise with a goofy name and ugly artwork.  Or maybe broken 3E half-dragons were popular with munchkins for those breath weapons and massive stat bonuses, and that threw out their surveys.

I'm certain they don't belong in core D&D, though, except in the new paradigm of "everything is core", which is crosseyed as well IMO.  They just don't fit.  I don't want to imagine them putting up their feet in taverns in my worlds, they'd be run out of town for sneezing and burning up the furniture.


----------



## Turanil (Jun 15, 2008)

[RANT]
Sorry guys, but too many of the last posts have nothing to do in this thread. This thread is for people explaining what they dislike about 4e, not for fanboys try to tell them they are wrong and should submit to the new faith as everyone else. Or maybe it's time for me to go and troll on raving 4e threads and tell them how wrong they are? Then, if a 4e mod decides to ban me from ENworld definitely, it can't be a bad thing. Times have changed but no way I am going to follow the "new world order".

What I dislike so much about 4e (reading around about it) is that it's obviously intended at milking the customer's wallet, and targets the kids' audience (where everything is equal and you can't die, so playing kid won't cry for mommy). It even borders on deception where it should have been called "_Warlords of Dungeoncraft: a new minis game for you kids_" rather than just using the D&D name.
[/RANT]


----------



## La Bete (Jun 15, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I'm certain they don't belong in core D&D, though, except in the new paradigm of "everything is core", which is crosseyed as well IMO.  They just don't fit.  I don't want to imagine them putting up their feet in taverns in my worlds, they'd be run out of town for sneezing and burning up the furniture.




I will admit I don't have any great love for them either. In fact, I don't recall anyone in any game I've ever played in wanting to be a dragon-type race. Ever. Certainly most of the homebrews I've run or played in don't have a slot for them (though I suppose they would be ideal in others).

I'm not real burned up about it, but the view that they shouldn't be in core isn't completely unreasonable.

Edit - Turanil, what? Get up on the wrong side of teh bed or something?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 15, 2008)

One of the things I dislike about 4e is that _I'm not allowed to dislike 4e_


----------



## Khairn (Jun 15, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> And if someone spends $30+ on a book it's kind of lame for the DM to just ban everything inside of it. There is a difference between "baninate" and "be a doormat" and "let your players use cool new stuff without actively trying to jack up your game".




In my experience, only inexperienced GM's or GM's who are deliberately trying to play a broken game allow players to use classes, feats and powers just because they bought a book.  Power creep comes to almost every game once the publishers start with splatbooks.

IMHO WotC (and D&D) are the poster children for the unbalanced nature of splats.  A perception that I would be willing to bet money on that will only grow as new splats, new PHB's and 3rd party publishers hit the store shelves.

You say its lame for a GM to ban the content of a book his player has bought.  I say its lame for anyone. player or GM, to include any power, class feat or ability simply because its in a book.  The GM needs to be clear at the start of his game on the books, classes and feats that will be included.  Then he should carefully look new material over before allowing them into his game.  If he isn't careful, that new power that just came out in WotC's new "Book of Uber-Powers" could very well break his game.


----------



## Andor (Jun 15, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> In my experience, only inexperienced GM's or GM's who are deliberately trying to play a broken game allow players to use classes, feats and powers just because they bought a book.  Power creep comes to almost every game once the publishers start with splatbooks.
> 
> IMHO WotC (and D&D) are the poster children for the unbalanced nature of splats.  A perception that I would be willing to bet money on that will only grow as new splats, new PHB's and 3rd party publishers hit the store shelves.
> 
> You say its lame for a GM to ban the content of a book his player has bought.  I say its lame for anyone. player or GM, to include any power, class feat or ability simply because its in a book.  The GM needs to be clear at the start of his game on the books, classes and feats that will be included.  Then he should carefully look new material over before allowing them into his game.  If he isn't careful, that new power that just came out in WotC's new "Book of Uber-Powers" could very well break his game.




Almost every 3e game I've played has been "All Wotc books allowed." It hasn't been a problem. And if you think 3e is the posterchile for unbalanced splats... all I can say is you never played Rifts.


----------



## Khairn (Jun 15, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Almost every 3e game I've played has been "All Wotc books allowed." It hasn't been a problem.




You sir, are a better (and braver) man than me !   

If D&D is the poster child ... that makes Rifts the deified paragon of power creep in gaming supplements.

How's that?


----------



## megamania (Jun 15, 2008)

3.5 works very very very well.  The possibilities are nearly endless.  So why "fix" it?



answer greed.   My wallet is speaking for me.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 15, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> 3.x multi rules ARE broken. It is a fact, if you want to acknowledge it or not. A bard3/monk4 is the same CR/EL as a barb4/fighter2. Seriously, give me a break.




How about you give us a break? Seriously, the "fact" that some rules are broken is an opinion of yours, and nothing more.



> _And if someone spends $30+ on a book it's kind of lame for the DM to just ban everything inside of it. There is a difference between "baninate" and "be a doormat" and "let your players use cool new stuff without actively trying to jack up your game"._




Maybe the person should have checked with their DM before buying it? Plenty of DM's I know say "nothing outside the Core Rules unless I approve it first" and then will be unafraid to say "no" when the player asks for something from another book.

But that's not the point. The point is, this thread is about airing what we don't like about the new edition. Stop making this into a debate about 3.5 versus 4.0.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 15, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> You say its lame for a GM to ban the content of a book his player has bought.  I say its lame for anyone. player or GM, to include any power, class feat or ability simply because its in a book.  The GM needs to be clear at the start of his game on the books, classes and feats that will be included.  Then he should carefully look new material over before allowing them into his game.  If he isn't careful, that new power that just came out in WotC's new "Book of Uber-Powers" could very well break his game.




You Sir are a wise man. This is one of the first things I tell any new GM. Any game I run has a set list of allowed books and other stuff is only allowed after it has been carefully looked over and picked apart.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 15, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> And if someone spends $30+ on a book it's kind of lame for the DM to just ban everything inside of it.




Not if it's the Book of Exalted Deeds. But seriously, I wouldn't bring a copy of Rifts to a D&D game and demand we all play Rifts because I bought it, why would that logic work with any particular D&D book?


----------



## FriarRosing (Jun 15, 2008)

My list of dislikes isn't that long in comparison to other peoples. There's some stuff I like, I'll admit, and there's some stuff I dislike, but I'd assume that's true of everyone. 


Really, this is more or less what everyone else has already said, but that doesn't matter.
Dislikes:

1. The Artwork: I just think the interior art in this edition is really crappy in comparison to the last one. This was really the first thing I noticed. All of the illustrations of the classes and races just seemed really dull and I'm rather annoyed with the amount of recycled art in the Monster Manual. I can admit, though, that I do like the cover design a lot more than 3rd edition. 

2. No Barbarian or Druid: I really like the more "savage" or nature based classes, and while we still do have the Ranger, I feel like that niche still isn't really filled. I miss my Druid . I know they're supposed to fix this with the next PHB with some nonsense about "Primal" Power sources, and that sounds fine, but I'd rather have had it now. Because, personally, I find the Warlord kind of stupid. I don't really think it was necessary to put him in this one. I guess they needed another class to fill the Leader (is that what it's called?) role, but I'd certainly have preferred something more traditional. 

3. 3 Elf Type Races: Do we really need three types of Elves? Do people love Elves that much? So much that we get three of them but no Gnomes or Half-Orcs. I don't even like Half-Orcs that much, but I certainly like them more than an assault of redundant Elves.

4. POWERS!: I'd like powers a lot if they weren't all so similar between classes, and if they hadn't made spell casting not feel like spell casting anyway. Well, maybe they still feel like spell casting, but not _D&D_ spell casting.

5. Everything Feels Artificial: At least, it feels artificial from a relative sense, because certainly everything in a roleplaying game like this is made up. I just mean that everything is organized perfectly and fits in an exact mold and in an exact spot. Some people might like this, and I can certainly see the logic behind in terms of game balance, but I personally kind of feel like it makes the game feel more superficial for some reason. Or like it lacks mystery. It makes magic feel like it's not supernatural. Something like that. 


Now just a thought on so-called "Sacred Cows":

I don't mind change, and I personally was looking forward to a new edition, and overall I actually do like this one for the most part. But, I think a lot of Dungeons and Dragons is defined by tradition. It's been around for a long time, and even though it's gone through many changes in its lifetime, there have always been things within the game that stayed put and were always recognizable. You can fiddle with various aspects of the game all you want, but a lot of D&D is its tradition, and I do think that "slaughtering" these "sacred cows" wasn't necessarily the best idea they could have had. Especially when they could have just altered pre-existing things they might have had issues with. Fantasy is about recognizable archetypes, and that's reflected in D&D. The tradition of Dungeons and Dragons is important, and while I'm totally okay with adding elements to it, I think you should definitely think before taking elements away. You need to think about how it will affect the flavor, look and appeal of the game. I don't know, maybe they decided that gnomes won't sell, or figured who the hell wants to play a barbarian? But I doubt it. For me, I don't mind a lot of changes. Vancian casting? Whatever. Saving throws? Go ahead, make them defenses. Gnomes, bards and druids? Why would you get rid of enduring elements of the game and replace them with goofy, cartoonish nonsense like Dragon people? Especially whose females, while supposedly repilian, possess mammary glands.


But no, I do like 4th edition and I'm excited about it. There are just a few things that rub me the wrong way.


----------



## Felix (Jun 15, 2008)

ironvyper said:
			
		

> All the reasonable stuff has been said, over and over, ad nauseum.  LOL you should pay more attention.



Ah. Yes. "LOL". 

So after reason has been attempted, we should abandon it for name calling. Brilliant.



> None of it is actually reasonable remember? We are afraid of change, or just dont understand the new paradigm and once we do we too will fall to our knees and worship at the idol of 4e because its so much better.......



And I'm sure some folks are afraid of change. It's only a matter of how they digest these changes and expel that digestion back into the world.

I don't like the change in these forums: the Rules forum has split, and traffic is way down for the 3e rules; I used to spend a lot of time there, because that's where the rules discussions were. 4e didn't maliciously take the Rules Forum from me, it's simply a result of its existence that people are discussing other rules.

I don't like the loss of Dungeon and Dragon: I have a magazine rack next to my porcelain throne where I have my old issues; those issues will never be updated.

I don't like rabid edition-warring name calling, on either side: that's what we had on these boards for a good while until the moratorium.

I don't like one of my groups going 4e: the campaign we have can't be converted 1-to-1. So we start a new campaign instead, with the loss of character development, backstory and ass-kickery; my half-orc bard/dread pirate will be sent to see old Hob, and such a loss!

All of those changes are incidental to 4e, and have nothing to do with the merits of the system itself. And yet those changes have a real effect on my enjoyment of DnD. So it's not unreasonable for 4e proponents to accuse detractors of hating 4e for reasons unrelated to the system unless those reasons are explicitly stated in your posts. Calling it a heap of rubbish (which it may indeed be) doesn't mean anything if you don't elaborate on why it is a heap.



> I suppose i'm bitter because i was  really looking forward to a 4th edition. Alot of the early stuff when it was just ideas sounded good to me.  Its the execution of those ideas that sucks. Like the guy before you said, its probably a perfectly good board game. Unfortunately that sucks in my opinion.



Yeah. Poor execution for some of the designs. Some of the design ideas were clever; the racial bonus progression that was dropped was the big one for me.



> But in an effort to be reasonable and rationale, i thought about posting a list of my dislikes, problem was it was ridiculously long.



The infinite aether of the interweb has enough room for your ridiculous dislikes. Actually, I somewhat curious: with the vitriol you heaved at 4e, I'm interested to know what the big stumbling blocks for you are.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 15, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> How about you give us a break? Seriously, the "fact" that some rules are broken is an opinion of yours, and nothing more.



 Yeah, you pretty much ignored his point there. The freedom of 3.5 multiclassing lead to a huge variance in the end result. Those who didn't optimize but wanted to play a certain type of character, such as a core bard/core monk took a beating. Those who optimized, losing the original concept in a slew of dipping into classes and prestige classes, ended up being very powerful. Even in the core, there is a wide variance in power, like his bard/monk versus fighter/barbarian example. The _fact_ is that a fighter/barbarian has a much higher chance to defeat monsters of his level than a bard/monk. If you disagree, please give examples. 

From what I can tell so far, the 4E multiclassing system is a step in the right direction for the overall wellbeing of D&D. Whenever I tried to bring new players into D&D, they definitely did not want to bother with getting the exact right skills and feats so they can dip into a prestige class later and have the right set of abilities to perfectly coincide with a level a certain class later on. I mean, I didn't even want to bother with it, but I had the willpower to do it a few times. 4E gives you narrower multiclassing choices that as a result do not deviate as strongly from the fragile line of power that exists in all editions of the game. 

This isn't to say that fun can't be had from making these multiclassed characters and playing them, because when it came down to it, it was fun to have an multiclassed character with tons of options. But, the problem is, I'm having more fun playing 4E as it is and spend way less time in preparation. Perhaps this will lead to a game even more shortlived than 3rd edition, but I am willing to take the risk.


----------



## ironvyper (Jun 15, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> The infinite aether of the interweb has enough room for your ridiculous dislikes. Actually, I somewhat curious: with the vitriol you heaved at 4e, I'm interested to know what the big stumbling blocks for you are.





 Theres a lot of stuff i dislike but I could deal with or happily handle with a house rule. The couple of things that really broke it for me though and made sure I'll never run a game of 4e are....

  The locked in roles. I didnt like how hard it was to make some archetypes early in the 3rd edition before some of the other books. Things like a fighter who became a good general or a rebel rouser leading a popular revolt and winning with brilliant tactics were very hard. They did a lot to fix that though later on in the game. 

  Now we have locked in roles. Your fighter is always a tank, your rogue will never be anything but a burglar. The wizard finally has some reason to multi-class and he'll never be anything but a neutered blaster. 

 The multi-classing rules are really a joke and because of that your characters are far too limited in their ability to advance and grow to become your mental image of them.

    Level based magic items.... This is so obnoxiously video-gamey i cant deal with it. Its like when you level up in a video game and the new shop becomes available so you have your level appropriate toys now.  Its easy enough to house rule out of existence but i dont feel like i should have to have a list of house rules thicker then the PHB to enjoy the game.  

  The limiting of options. Things like tripping or disarming being class powers instead of combat options. Now if your rogue/burglar wants to sneak in and capture someone he cant trip the bad guy to hold him down and tie him up or disarm the target if they happen to be armed but need to be taken alive. They took so many choices out of the game that it reminds me more then ever of a videogame. I can clearly visualize the little combat menu popping up with my 3 or 4 buttons to choose from and no ability to do anything creative outside of the box.

   The class dynamic didnt need to be changed either. A lot of these problems seem to center on them changing it from a game of individuals to a game about a team.  When i picture D&D heroes i picture people who are capable, powerful individuals who can stand on their own and win. They work together because its easier or because they like each other, not because if they dont have all the party roles filled they're doomed. 

    And those kinds of characters, ya know HEROES with capitol letters who can do anything if they try hard enough just dont exist anymore. Now we have people who are more like a swat team that kills monsters, you have snipers and medics and your front line entry team that all work and train together with interlocking tactics to win. And that makes perfect sense in the real world, but its not heroic like fantasy heroes are. Its board gamey like a table top game of Warhammer. Maybe some people are okay with that, but when i want squad based tactical combat i can either play a video game or some actual warhammer. And have a lot less hassle.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 15, 2008)

Didn't a mod on one of the first pages say "This thread isn't for defending 4e or complaining about 3.5?"  Seriously?


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 16, 2008)

ironvyper said:
			
		

> Now we have locked in roles. Your fighter is always a tank, your rogue will never be anything but a burglar. The wizard finally has some reason to multi-class and he'll never be anything but a neutered blaster.



You're saying that a fighter in 4th can't be a general or a rebel rouser? Why wouldn't they be able to? Also, it should be said that roles aren't an invention of 4E, the ideal party is the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric. Now the ideal party is the defender, striker, controller and leader. How is designing more classes to fit into these roles a bad thing? 3rd edition designed classes with this in mind, such as the beguiler to meet the needs of a rogue, etc, so where is the negative change?

One more thing, multiclassing allows you to take powers from other classes, so your fighter doesn't always have to be a tank and your rogue doesn't have to be a burglar, not that the rogue really seems to be a burglar in 4E. Before you say, "multiclassing is a joke" explain how taking powers from other classes _does not_ change their role. I mean, a fighter taking arcane powers from a wizard is giving up on tanking powers for arcana. Clearly he is no longer just a tank.



			
				ironvyper said:
			
		

> Level based magic items.... This is so obnoxiously video-gamey i cant deal with it. Its like when you level up in a video game and the new shop becomes available so you have your level appropriate toys now.  Its easy enough to house rule out of existence but i dont feel like i should have to have a list of house rules thicker then the PHB to enjoy the game.



Not so much, all editions are this way. You can't afford +2 or a +3 weapon until you're higher level. Is it like a new shop comes available that you can buy your toys at when you have the appropriate amount of gold in 3rd edition too? How about 1st and 2nd? Anyway, the levels on the items are purely an abstraction which help the DM out, ignore them and you are left with the gold values like we had in 3rd. No change.



			
				ironvyper said:
			
		

> The limiting of options. Things like tripping or disarming being class powers instead of combat options. Now if your rogue/burglar wants to sneak in and capture someone he cant trip the bad guy to hold him down and tie him up or disarm the target if they happen to be armed but need to be taken alive. They took so many choices out of the game that it reminds me more then ever of a videogame. I can clearly visualize the little combat menu popping up with my 3 or 4 buttons to choose from and no ability to do anything creative outside of the box.



 Wait, trip the bad guy, hold him down and tie him up? People did this? So trip attempt, grapple attempt, then, like, use rope? Anyway, disarming and tripping were suboptimal unless your character was built specially for it, and when it worked it turned a decent encounter into an absolute push over. But, I respect that you liked trip and disarm but it never worked as well as it sounded in my games.



			
				ironvyper said:
			
		

> The class dynamic didnt need to be changed either. A lot of these problems seem to center on them changing it from a game of individuals to a game about a team.  When i picture D&D heroes i picture people who are capable, powerful individuals who can stand on their own and win. They work together because its easier or because they like each other, not because if they dont have all the party roles filled they're doomed.



Alright, D&D has always been based around teamwork and cooperation, since 1st edition. Wait, maybe you have it backwards, now that I think about it. The heroes, yes, heroes, of 4E are more stand-alone than ever. They can heal themselves via healing surges and in combat with second wind. Each has a good set of powers for dealing damage, and some utility powers to help all around. No longer is a cleric absolutely required, or a wizard absoutely broken.

I certainly see where your coming from in the limitation of option but honestly if you consider that martial classes before had very little option and now they have to pick 1 out of 4 encounter and daily powers every time they gain them, I think it's around equal if not more.


----------



## Aqua Vitae (Jun 16, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> And if someone spends $30+ on a book it's kind of lame for the DM to just ban everything inside of it. There is a difference between "baninate" and "be a doormat" and "let your players use cool new stuff without actively trying to jack up your game".




Not if, as game master, you specify at the outset that you'll only be using certain rules, or rulebooks.  I spend a heck of a lot of time building my own world, and I really don't too much care for marketing analysts out there indirectly trying to inflate it with their fluff by drafting catchy, snazzy, character concepts and forcing my players to spend $30 for it.

I am really probably more liberal than I should be.  I just don't think I should be obliged to indulge every single "flavor of the week."

I respect the choice of many players to switch to 4E...or not.  I have made my choice in gaming system.


----------



## Aqua Vitae (Jun 16, 2008)

megamania said:
			
		

> 3.5 works very very very well.  The possibilities are nearly endless.  So why "fix" it?...answer greed.   My wallet is speaking for me.




My wallet spoke twice.  I bought the 4E books from my bookstore.

I returned them later, and re-purchased my 3.5 books.

Edit: This is all so disheartening, you know.  I remember how elated so many of us were back in 2000/1 upon hearing of the approaching 3E.  I've been playing D&D since the mid-1980s, and I don't ever recall immediately returning an entire edition to the bookstore after buying and looking over it.


----------



## Felix (Jun 16, 2008)

> Those who didn't optimize but wanted to play a certain type of character, such as a core bard/core monk took a beating. Those who optimized, losing the original concept in a slew of dipping into classes and prestige classes, ended up being very powerful. Even in the core, there is a wide variance in power, like his bard/monk versus fighter/barbarian example. The fact is that a fighter/barbarian has a much higher chance to defeat monsters of his level than a bard/monk. If you disagree, please give examples.



The fighter/barbarian will trounce the bard/monk in single combat. The bard/monk will trounce the fighter/barbarian when it comes to skills and social interaction. How much one trounces the other will depend how often and what kind of combat encounters you face. 

3e made those combinations possible, even if you think it was only giving a player rope to hang himself on. "Options, not restrictions" still resonates for me. Not so much with 4e, I suppose.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 16, 2008)

First of all, as others have noted, this isn't a "let's defend 4e thread" or a "let's tell people how their opinions are wrong" thread.  There's room for healthy discussion, but this hasn't been it.



			
				fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> You're saying that a fighter in 4th can't be a general or a rebel rouser? Why wouldn't they be able to? Also, it should be said that roles aren't an invention of 4E, the ideal party is the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric. Now the ideal party is the defender, striker, controller and leader.



The core four iconic roles in previous editions of D&D were taken from classic fantasy tropes as portrayed in literature and film.  They were thematic elements given a mechanical framework.  That's reversed in 4e; here the roles are mechanical, with thematic elements added in.  I think it does lock down or restrict the thematic elements a bit, or at least make them kludgier.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 16, 2008)

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Yeah, you pretty much ignored his point there. The freedom of 3.5 multiclassing lead to a huge variance in the end result. Those who didn't optimize but wanted to play a certain type of character, such as a core bard/core monk took a beating.




Only if you very narrowly define what is important about a character. If the only thing you care about is who is the biggest combat monster, then sure, the fighter/barbarian is better. But for the ability to do noncombat stuff, the fighter/barbarian is left in the dust.



> _Those who optimized, losing the original concept in a slew of dipping into classes and prestige classes, ended up being very powerful._




Sometimes, sure. That's the nature of a system that allows for flexibility and choice. I suppose that some people prefer to have their choices made for them in order to prevent them from choosing "poorly". Me, I prefer to have the option to create characters and chooce from a wide variety of possibilities.



> _Even in the core, there is a wide variance in power, like his bard/monk versus fighter/barbarian example. The fact is that a fighter/barbarian has a much higher chance to defeat monsters of his level than a bard/monk. If you disagree, please give examples._




The fighter/barbarian has a higher chance of defeating a monster of his level in exactly one way: by beating it to death on melee.

The bard/monk has a better chance of defeating a monster via social skills. Or of avoiding the monster with stealth, or by the use of other skills. Or by misdirecting it with illusions. Or controlling it with enchantments. The fighter/barbarian is completely useless for helping his allies after a fight.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 16, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> And if someone spends $30+ on a book it's kind of lame for the DM to just ban everything inside of it. There is a difference between "baninate" and "be a doormat" and "let your players use cool new stuff without actively trying to jack up your game".



I think it's lame for someone to show up at a game and expect to play whatever they want without checking with the DM.

My rpg library was far, far larger than any of my players' libraries, so I was the one dragging out the esoteric stuff.  Players were welcome to draw upon it, subject to my approval.  And if someone brought in a book I didn't have, they were welcome to use it -- after they bought me a copy to examine and keep.

Oddly, no one took me up on it.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jun 16, 2008)

I hate the schism that has been created between 4e and 3e; it is so bad for a hobby that is already in danger of being swept aside to make way for MMORPGs.

That's all I got, cuz' I love everything else.


----------



## Khairn (Jun 16, 2008)

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> I hate the schism that has been created between 4e and 3e; it is so bad for a hobby that is already in danger of being swept aside to make way for MMORPGs.
> 
> That's all I got, cuz' I love everything else.




I'm not certain that there is any more of an MMORPG threat due to the schism, but I am surprised at the continuing passion on both sides of the chasm.  Especially after the game has hit the streets.

WotC did create a fun game that a lot of people want to play, but they also did a good job of alienating a large part of their former player base at the same time.  I wonder if there could have been a way to both create a new system without pissing off the gamers they have?

Oh well.  I'll get off my soapbox now and leave this subject for another thread.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 16, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I think it does lock down or restrict the thematic elements a bit, or at least make them kludgier.



 I'm not sure I follow. How does defining the roles then building classes from those roles lock down or restrict anything? The classes have a role as they always have, and can multiclass out of that role. Did you mean that classes within the same role feel the same? Well, I'm not sure, but I think there is quite a bit of difference between a warlord and a cleric. Their powers simply do different things, even if achieving the same thematic goal of support. Is this a complaint with D&D as a whole or with 4E?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Only if you very narrowly define what is important about a character. If the only thing you care about is who is the biggest combat monster, then sure, the fighter/barbarian is better. But for the ability to do noncombat stuff, the fighter/barbarian is left in the dust.



Well, that's another issue for another day, classes having nothing to do in combat just waiting for roleplaying and vice versa. The point is, you can build yourself to be terrible in combat on accident or even with good intentions. The point wasn't about the example of a bard/monk, it was that the multiclassing system is broken in 3.5 because of the huge variance in end results. I'm arguing that fixing it is keeping everything tailored to a strict power curve, or in other words, 'make multi-classing a joke.'



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Me, I prefer to have the option to create characters and chooce from a wide variety of possibilities.



Well, you can still create characters in 4th edition and have a wide variety of possibilities. Even if 4th edition has less choices(which I'm not entirely convinced of just yet, based on every class having a wide variety of powers to choose from,) that doesn't mean that there isn't a "wide variety." I can't argue with you thinking that 4E simply does not have a the amount of variety to be considered "wide," but overall, I find that  even with very restrictive rules like multiclassing 4E still has plenty of options.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The bard/monk has a better chance of defeating a monster via social skills. Or of avoiding the monster with stealth, or by the use of other skills. Or by misdirecting it with illusions. Or controlling it with enchantments. The fighter/barbarian is completely useless for helping his allies after a fight.



To be sure, multiclassing a caster was terrible, losing caster level was a huge handicap. You'd be misdirecting and enchanting at a low save DC due to multiple ability dependency and the low spell level. Once they save against your spells, you have nothing else to do really. In 4E, once you multiclass to gain the spells you want, you aren't suffering from decreased spell level, and at worst you suffer from MAD. I made a 'bard' using the 4E rules so far, making an inspiring warlord multiclassed into fey-pact warlock. Sure, it takes some reflavoring (Wolf Pack Tactics=Directing Flourish,etc...) but I'm liking the end result a lot. And, the only power trade off I'm worried about is "well...hmmm...maybe I should have taken that feat instead..." I view this as a good thing. Hmm, on the other hand, I could have gone a more "lore-master" approach and gone the tactical warlord and then multiclassed into wizard... or maybe I could stay warlord and be completely free of anything magical, using only my wit to pull me through.

On a side note, does anyone really want to play someone who does nothing in combat but sweeps anything out of combat? In my 4E campaign so far, I've found my players are contributing to both since everyone has trained skills now and everyone has combat oriented powers, and we're having a lot of fun. I guess I'd like to hear how the grass is on the other side.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 16, 2008)

Turanil said:
			
		

> [RANT]
> (where everything is equal and you can't die, so playing kid won't cry for mommy). It even borders on deception where it should have been called "_Warlords of Dungeoncraft: a new minis game for you kids_" rather than just using the D&D name.
> [/RANT]




I think everyone who spouts off about "you can't die" should actually try the game. In 2 sessions I've had 3 near deaths, that's FAR more than I saw per session in 3.x

I still think it's funny how many people have to indirectly slam anyone who likes 4e. It really isn't a requirement. But, I'm obviously just a lacking roleplayer with maturity issues who is only complex enough to play minis games, so give me a break!


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 16, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Didn't a mod on one of the first pages say "This thread isn't for defending 4e or complaining about 3.5?"  Seriously?




How else am I going to find out why people don't like 4e? Only about half the posters (if that) are actually listing valid reasons for their dislike. A lot of the arguments I'm reading boil down to something along the lines of "LOL warcraft" so it doesn't help a reader like me. Consider it curious prompting.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 16, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The bard/monk has a better chance of defeating a monster via social skills. Or of avoiding the monster with stealth, or by the use of other skills. Or by misdirecting it with illusions. Or controlling it with enchantments. The fighter/barbarian is completely useless for helping his allies after a fight.




I'd let this stand if we were talking about a single class monk or bard, but we're not. How often were monsters defeated by social skills, anyway? If orcs ambush you, you don't have time for your one minute diplomacy check, and even then you have to get some silly number that  a multiclass bard/monk isn't going to have.



			
				Nellisir said:
			
		

> I think it's lame for someone to show up at a game and expect to play whatever they want without checking with the DM.




Sidestepping the fact that you force your players to purchase expensive books for you in order to use them, and that everyone who addressed this thinks I was advocating that demanding your way and throwing the hinges off every single book in your possession is correct, what I'm actually saying is that "automatically banning entire books" is not the same thing as "letting a player use a few abilities for their character that they find especially exciting". If you don't like some new thing, talk it out with the player. The line about "not fitting with my campaign" is something I've always seen various DMs say to players who wanted to break their molds. If Augment Healing doesn't "fit a campaign", why does healing magic even exist?


----------



## Slife (Jun 16, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> You say its lame for a GM to ban the content of a book his player has bought.  I say its lame for anyone. player or GM, to include any power, class feat or ability simply because its in a book.  The GM needs to be clear at the start of his game on the books, classes and feats that will be included.  Then he should carefully look new material over before allowing them into his game.  If he isn't careful, that new power that just came out in WotC's new "Book of Uber-Powers" could very well break his game.



And I say it's lame that you have to worry about players breaking the game.

I just don't see the point.  If you value powerful characters over everything else, play Pun-Pun*  Otherwise, what's the point?  

Since power is obviously not the main goal of a character, the question becomes campaign-significant.  If you trust the people at your table to show up and try to have fun, you should probably also trust them not to ruin everyone else's fun....


I seem to have veered off topic.

My main beef is that I can see how I would make a random class ability generator for 4e fairly easily.  Assign points for each of the following action consequences:
damage a target,
move miniature(s),
inflict a standard_status_ailment
give a standard_status_buff
heal

Multiply by three for multiple allied targets, or five for multiple enemy targets.  It would be more difficult to do the flavor text, but given the shortness of the PHB examples it seems doable.

Assign a certain number of points per level, then generate classes.  
With a bit of programming, you could make it into a nice little computer game.  

And it's possible they did something similar.  That is, the abilities seem to be generated by choosing from a list of options, adding some damage, then shoehorning in some flavor text.  I'd prefer a system that allows for, say, a defenestrating sphere that's actually usable in combat.


The weird compromise between "realistic" combat and the healing surges/minions rules also bugs me.  If they wanted to abstract the game more, they shouldn't be using miniatures.  As it is, the rules seem less like a video game and more like a board game.  Why can the knight only move in an L shape?  It's his class ability.  The current compromise makes it seem like the everyday world and combat world act differently.

If I want to play a pure miniatures board game, I'll choose Descent.  It's fun, it's mindless destruction, I don't have to worry about baby kobolds.  Yes, characters are pregens with random additional bonuses.  I don't want to invest time writing backstory for a pawn, or statting him up.  

If I wanted to play a more abstract game with a non-vancian magic system and a new default setting, I'd choose Dresden instead.  The core system used handles everything similarly, which prevents the odd random encounter/minigame feel 4e is giving me for combat.

And if I want ultra gripping violent realism where you can know about every punctured kidney and severed finger, and armor wears down over time, and a wrestler can, like, rip the quiver off someone's back and beat them to death with it, I'd play Dwarf Fortress, because there's no way I'm keeping track of all that stuff.

The reason I liked 3e was the fact that the rules seemed like they'd work for combat and non-combat situations.  Other than the stupid economy stuff (which no version handles well), and a couple of other abstractions, it actually seemed plausible that the world worked based on the rules given**, and combat just was the only time you really cared enough to count rounds.


*The best way to handle this as a GM is simple: pass them the screen and start rolling 4d6 drop 1.  It's amazing how few players want to immediately start GMing.
** Yes, HP are unrealistic.  So are turn-based game systems.  It just saves a lot of time to do it this way.  Dwarf fortress does limb-based injuries, and


----------



## billd91 (Jun 16, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> I'd let this stand if we were talking about a single class monk or bard, but we're not. How often were monsters defeated by social skills, anyway? If orcs ambush you, you don't have time for your one minute diplomacy check, and even then you have to get some silly number that  a multiclass bard/monk isn't going to have.




Not all encounters can be solved by combat and not all potential combat encounters need to be fought if the suitable application of a skill can suffice.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 16, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> One of the things I dislike about 4e is that _I'm not allowed to dislike 4e_



I think there's a difference between saying "I don't think I'd have fun playing 4e" or even "4e is a stinking turd," on the one hand, and saying "4e is a boardgame with no roleplaying which could only appeal to the juvenile," on  the other. The latter is an assertion of fact which is pretty confrontational. The former two are expressions of dislike which are, if sincere, uncontestable (other than perhaps flouting the forum language prohibitions).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 16, 2008)

Slife said:
			
		

> And I say it's lame that you have to worry about players breaking the game.
> 
> I just don't see the point.  If you value powerful characters over everything else, play Pun-Pun*  Otherwise, what's the point?
> 
> ...



So, you're saying a well thought out system that even a normally mathematically inclined human can figure out and use to create a balanced system is not a good idea if you want to create a role-playing game?
Would this mean it's best to have all abilities randomly designed with no underlying system? (Of course, computers can also do at least pseudo-"random"). Oh, well, let's create a Fireball spell - 1d6 points of damage per level, max 10 d6, 20 ft radius burst. Let's make that 3rd level. And, how about a spell to scry out people - that's a fantasy staple. Make that a 1st level spell, sounds fun. 

You know, there is reason why it's called "Design & Development". Because they actually doing some hard work coming up with their numbers. It's not just guessing or doing it like it has always been done.

(And your characterization of the system doesn't look sufficient to describe a power like Web, Bigby's Hand or one of the Rogues utility powers. But it's certainly a good start for simple damage-dealing effects.)


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 16, 2008)

(Just as a tangent, I don't think there's any question that a monk/bard would _seriously_ suck.  Bards must be non-lawful and monks must be lawful.  While you don't lose anything except the ability to advance by switching to lawful as a bard, it does force you to take all your bard levels first, and then to start over as a monk.  That's pretty sucktastic, by almost any measure.)


----------



## Zander (Jun 16, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Tieflings, Dragonborn as core, but gnomes, halforcs are not.



I enjoy 4E but I have to agree with you about the core races. That bugs me too.

I'm also disappointed by the absence of certain classes; barbarians, druids and swashbucklers in particular.

And I'm angry about the missing monsters in the MM: frost giants, clay golems, centaurs, pegasi and merfolk to name a few.

I admit to being something of a traditionalist: I like fantasy based on mythology, folklore, legend, classic literature and (to a lesser extent) on old school D&D races, classes and monsters. I don't mind the new game mechanics but I'm most unhappy that WotC is trying to redefine fantasy (see the quote of Clavis in my sig).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2008)

Could we please have some more moderation to keep this thread on topic?

Thank you.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Could we please have some more moderation to keep this thread on topic?
> 
> Thank you.




I read your Greedo theory and had a good laugh. Thanks for posting that. I disagree with that full assessment a little bit. IMHO 3.0 to 3.5 became the edition where Greedo shot first. 4th Ed is more like the reimagined ET. All of the flavor of the classes, feats, and abilities have been replaced with walkie talkies.


----------



## EATherrian (Jun 16, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Not all encounters can be solved by combat and not all potential combat encounters need to be fought if the suitable application of a skill can suffice.




No combat?  No combat?  That's pre-4E thinking there and you need to stop that!  That is unFun, and this new edition is all about fun.  Really, I want the PDFs just to count the number of times the word fun is used.  It's up there with a and the I think.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 16, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> Sidestepping the fact that you force your players to purchase expensive books for you in order to use them,



I never forced anyone.  Not one player ever bought me a book.  Then again, not one player of mine ever bought a book I didn't already own.  My 2e library was $4000+ (cover price); my 3e library is more.



> and that everyone who addressed this thinks I was advocating that demanding your way and throwing the hinges off every single book in your possession is correct, what I'm actually saying is that "automatically banning entire books" is not the same thing as "letting a player use a few abilities for their character that they find especially exciting". If you don't like some new thing, talk it out with the player. The line about "not fitting with my campaign" is something I've always seen various DMs say to players who wanted to break their molds. If Augment Healing doesn't "fit a campaign", why does healing magic even exist?



It doesn't matter if you ban the entire book or one sentence, if that sentence is the one the player wants.

It comes down to where you draw the line between DM perogative and player perogative.  I encourage my players to help develop my world, but in the end, it's my world and my setting.  Did I disallow books?  Absolutely.  No psionics, no incarnum (not that anyone asked), no epic. I would've allowed binders, but probably not shadowmagic or truenamers.  And I made that clear to everyone that joined the group.  It had nothing to do with balance, and everything to do with a) versimilitude of the setting, and b) my burden, as a DM, to be familiar and comfortable with the rules.  I don't think its fair of a player to ask a DM to run a game using rules the DM isn't familiar with and probably doesn't even own!

This is entirely off topic, though -- I'll not reply to this again in this thread.  Maybe in a new one.


----------



## EATherrian (Jun 16, 2008)

Since I've spent the weekend reading and re-reading the books I find the need to add my ideas here.

1)  Every class looks EXACTLY the same.  There are all just sets of powers.  The Player's Handbook reads like the Advanced Squad Leader rule-book, but without the humor and soul.

2)  The Dungeon Master's Guide really didn't give me enough to adjudicate properly.  I'm still not sure how a real random encounter can and would work under this new system.

3)  The over-use of the word fun.  It's a game, we wouldn't be playing it if it wasn't fun.  It becomes obnoxious after a point and starts to sound like they are trying to convince themselves.

In conclusion, I really don't like it.  It just doesn't have the feel of D&D to me, but I will play it to see if I can house-rule it into something worthwhile.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 16, 2008)

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I follow. How does defining the roles then building classes from those roles lock down or restrict anything?



It's the mechanical approach vs the thematic approach, or bottom-up vs top-down.  I don't have time to go into it right now, but I'll try to come back to it later.



> The classes have a role as they always have, and can multiclass out of that role.



Erm, not really.



> Did you mean that classes within the same role feel the same?



Nope, that's not what I meant.



> Well, I'm not sure, but I think there is quite a bit of difference between a warlord and a cleric. Their powers simply do different things, even if achieving the same thematic goal of support.



No, -mechanically- they are support roles.  Thematically they are inspiring leaders, devout priests, etc.



> Is this a complaint with D&D as a whole or with 4E?



The problem is greater in 4e, and this is a 4e thread, so 4e.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 16, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> No combat?  No combat?  That's pre-4E thinking there and you need to stop that!  That is unFun, and this new edition is all about fun.  Really, I want the PDFs just to count the number of times the word fun is used.  It's up there with a and the I think.



A campaign can have a near 100 % focus on combat, a near 100 % focus on non-combat, or anything between. 

I prefer any class design that will let each of the two extremes and anything in-between work fine, with no one feeling sub-par or useless, and no one being the constant spot-light hogger or being overpowered.

I want to play in any kind of campaign and let my decision whether I play a Fighter or a Bard be independent of the focus of the campaign. 

A dream? Naive? Infeasible? Wishful Thinking? 



Spoiler



4E?


----------



## EATherrian (Jun 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> A campaign can have a near 100 % focus on combat, a near 100 % focus on non-combat, or anything between.
> 
> I prefer any class design that will let each of the two extremes and anything in-between work fine, with no one feeling sub-par or useless, and no one being the constant spot-light hogger or being overpowered.
> 
> ...




I always get confused when I read things like this.  I always played the class I wanted to play.  I never bothered to see if it fit into the game first, I found a way to fit it into the game.  Am I an anomoly?  I can't be the only one who played like this.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 16, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> I'd let this stand if we were talking about a single class monk or bard, but we're not. How often were monsters defeated by social skills, anyway? If orcs ambush you, you don't have time for your one minute diplomacy check, and even then you have to get some silly number that  a multiclass bard/monk isn't going to have.




Wow. A lot of assumptions there.

The frequency by which opponents are defeated by social skills in a campaign is campaign dependent. In some campaigns, its all about whacking the heads off goblins. In others, its about negotiation.

And not all "monsters" are orcs, or similar beasties. "Monsters" could be a guild of thieves running the organized crime of a city. Or a neutral baron who needs to be cajoled into a coalition. The fighter/barbarian isn't going to be any good at pretty much anything that involves anything other than bashing the heads of his opponents.

The question of whether a bard/monk could be good a social skills just shows a lack of understanding as to how a character could spike a couple skills even if he is multiclassing. There isn't a need for a bard to take six seperate skills with his allotment of skill points - he can focus on three and double up to "make up" for levels where he uses monk skill points, and vice versa. He could easily have a diplomacy score as high as a single classed bard if he wanted to.

And this doesn't even get into his other options - stealth (both classes have these skills on their class skill lists), use of magic to enhance his mundane skills, or his allies and so on.

Fighter/barbarian - bash, bash, bash. That can be fun, but if its the sole option, its pretty boring.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 16, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> I always get confused when I read things like this.  I always played the class I wanted to play.  I never bothered to see if it fit into the game first, I found a way to fit it into the game.  Am I an anomoly?  I can't be the only one who played like this.



Paizo Adventure Paths & Dungeon adventures: By now, I play the class we need. Even if it is a Cleric, which I hate playing. 

Homebrew campaign: I'd play what I like, knowing the DM will adjust. 

But that doesn't change that playing a Fighter in a high-intrigue campaign is boring. I can barely contribute to anything. And as a Rogue in a undead-heavy, combat focused campaign? Great, I can pick some locks. At least, until the Fighter has bought his Admantite Greataxe...

It's not just the choice that matters, it's also that I should be guaranteed to have fun. This doesn't have to mean "Damage per Second" or "Diplomancing the King", but it should mean "I made a difference." (for the better  )


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> I always get confused when I read things like this.  I always played the class I wanted to play.  I never bothered to see if it fit into the game first, I found a way to fit it into the game.  Am I an anomoly?  I can't be the only one who played like this.




You are not.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It's not just the choice that matters, it's also that I should be guaranteed to have fun. This doesn't have to mean "Damage per Second" or "Diplomancing the King", but it should mean "I made a difference." (for the better  )




That's pretty much a question of DMing though, isn't it? I mean, if you play a social skill heavy rogue and the DM includes zero opportunities to use social skills, that's not really the fault of the system. It seems that the authors of 4e simply decided that the only element that matters is how quickly a character can bash heads - and the rest just doesn't matter at all.

That, to me, just creates a game that seems very limited in scope.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That's pretty much a question of DMing though, isn't it? I mean, if you play a social skill heavy rogue and the DM includes zero opportunities to use social skills, that's not really the fault of the system. It seems that the authors of 4e simply decided that the only element that matters is how quickly a character can bash heads - and the rest just doesn't matter at all.
> 
> That, to me, just creates a game that seems very limited in scope.




There is no possible way that even I can argue with Storm Raven on this one.

RC


----------



## krissbeth (Jun 16, 2008)

There are so many reasons that have already been outlined, but my main reason for sticking with older editions and not looking back is:

4E doesn't offer the types of characters I _like_ to play.  That makes it decidedly Not Fun (*gasp*).  It's all so generic.  The lack of creativity kind of makes me go "ick" at the whole thing.


----------



## mhensley (Jun 16, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> 1)  Every class looks EXACTLY the same.  There are all just sets of powers.  The Player's Handbook reads like the Advanced Squad Leader rule-book, but without the humor and soul.




This is absolutely spot on.  4e's solution for class balance is like communism- everyone is equally poor.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But that doesn't change that playing a Fighter in a high-intrigue campaign is boring. I can barely contribute to anything.




Depends on how often the social-interaction dice hit the table. If they don't come out very often, then you can contribute as much as anyone else because general RP contribution doesn't require any dice or mechanics at all.
Looking at 4e, your options (as far as rolling for skill checks) aren't all that much better when it comes to being the heavy lifter. The DC system is geared toward making you fail an untrained skill check 75% of the time. Granted, aid another is pretty much gravy since it's one of the few DCs that don't seem to scale with level, but it's not that hard in 3e either.
I applaud 4e for giving the fighter another trained skill and a decent social skill option. I also think the readily-available feats to pick up additional skills are a good idea. But the skill DC system is still stacked against you. Fail to take Streetwise and don't put any feats into other cross class skills (quite reasonable decisions) and you're still behind the curve for level-appropriate challenges.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 16, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That's pretty much a question of DMing though, isn't it? I mean, if you play a social skill heavy rogue and the DM includes zero opportunities to use social skills, that's not really the fault of the system. It seems that the authors of 4e simply decided that the only element that matters is how quickly a character can bash heads - and the rest just doesn't matter at all.
> 
> That, to me, just creates a game that seems very limited in scope.



It can also be a fault of the DM, if he doesn't take into account that class A is good at combat but sucks outside it, and class B is bad at combat but shines outside of it.

But if the game ensures that class A and class B can contribute equally (but differently) both in and outside combat, this looks like one headache for the DM less. 



> Depends on how often the social-interaction dice hit the table. If they don't come out very often, then you can contribute as much as anyone else because general RP contribution doesn't require any dice or mechanics at all.



I don't see it as "good role-playing" is my charisma 8 Fighter is constantly engaged in general role-playing and relating to other people, or if an INT 8 Barbarian comes up with a good strategy to unravel the cultists conspiracy. 
It might bel fun, it might be problem-solving, but it is decidedly not playing my role.


----------



## Felon (Jun 16, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> 3)  The over-use of the word fun.  It's a game, we wouldn't be playing it if it wasn't fun.  It becomes obnoxious after a point and starts to sound like they are trying to convince themselves.



I'll see your overuse of "fun" in the books and raise you an overuse of the word "cool" in the web articles.   

What gripes my bottom about their talk of fun is that they really seem to believe they can speak of it in an objective manner. Their definition seems to emphasize a sizable attention deficiency. Thinking, planning, and caution are all synonyms for "unfun". They don't know what's fun for me.


----------



## Felon (Jun 16, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> I always get confused when I read things like this.  I always played the class I wanted to play.  I never bothered to see if it fit into the game first, I found a way to fit it into the game.  Am I an anomoly?  I can't be the only one who played like this.



Well, it can be kind of selfish to not even consdier the contribution your character will make to the group; the group may simply not need another rogue, for instance, so no matter how hard you try to find a way to fit in, playing one might mean that you don't earn your keep.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I don't see it as "good role-playing" is my charisma 8 Fighter is constantly engaged in general role-playing and relating to other people, or if an INT 8 Barbarian comes up with a good strategy to unravel the cultists conspiracy.
> It might bel fun, it might be problem-solving, but it is decidedly not playing my role.




You assume that either of those situations requires your character to be either eloquent or clever. Playing either of those stats in those situations can be both rewarding and memorable... though frankly, even worse stats would be even more fun.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 16, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> . . . Every class looks EXACTLY the same.  There are all just sets of powers.






			
				krissbeth said:
			
		

> . . . It's all so generic.




IMO, 4e is a textbook example of how NOT to present a game.  Allowing that 4e can be fun to play, you would never know it from reading the core books.  4e comes across in print as wooden.  Blah.  Generic.  Repetitive to the point of dullness.  This is a game of adventure?  Not from reading it, it isn't.  

From a play standpoint, IM (limited experience)O, 4e is over designed with the result that its a muddle.  Its about ziggy a little here, zagging a little there and mostly noodling around in the middle.  4e seems to be about performing mostly small, coordinated actions that add up to actuarial success.  It does not immediately play as high adventure for me.

YMMV


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 17, 2008)

Hmm, your response was so brief Nellisir you left me nothing to work with, speaking only to the effect of 'no, you're wrong.' I look forward to a more in depth response to my points.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There is no possible way that even I can argue with Storm Raven on this one.
> 
> RC



 There is definitely a way I can argue with what Storm Raven is saying here. Alright, let's get this straight. In core 3.5 skills were something tacked on to classes that really had nothing to do with the abilities they had. Why do I say tacked on? Well, that's just it, the skills themselves didn't have anything to do with the class that took them, except for of course the rogue with his sole ability of finding and disabling traps. You may say well, "Knowledge(Arcana) had everything to do with being a wizard," and I'll say no, not really. High intelligence had everything to do with being a wizard, not the knowledge skill, not even spellcraft. If anything, concentration was the bread and butter and that only had COMBAT uses. Or in other words, you don't have to roll concentration in the king's chamber while your negociating with him. Anyway, the point isn't to argue about what is useful and what is not here, I'm just saying the wizard didn't need his skills to cast his spells.

Now, in 4th edition, some skills are required in order to use the out of combat wizard spells, Rituals. Notably Arcana, not sure about others. Rogues need to use thievery to unlock doors and disable traps. So, skills have a bigger role out of combat, even if only slightly. Let's take it a step further.

The barbarian/fighter of 3.5 likely has a low intelligence, preferring to have strength and constitution instead. So, they have maybe 1 or 2 trained skills to level up each level. So, they can climb and jump outside of combat and that's about it. In 4th edition, each class has around 4 trained skills no matter what your intelligence is. So, now in 4th edition, the group as a whole has more out of combat options than ever. Skills play a role for every single player at the table. So where is the restriction? Where is the "4E has no out of combat?"



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It seems that the authors of 4e simply decided that the only element that matters is how quickly a character can bash heads - and the rest just doesn't matter at all.
> 
> That, to me, just creates a game that seems very limited in scope.



 So, now considering that each class now has access to skills, how can you possibly say that the only element that matters is how quickly a character and bash heads? Because that's what powers are centered on? Some utility powers increase the power of skills, out of combat. If anything, I should be arguing that 3.5 focuses on combat. I look at the table for the core classes and see Saves, Base Attack Bonus, Feats, Special Abilities, nothing to do with skills. Now, I'm not arguing that, because I don't really care which one is more focused on combat, but you're being completely unfair in your judgment of 4E. To get it straight, 3E was fun to play too, in the same way that 2E was fun to play, but I defend the new edition now because I play it and have fun with it, in combat and out. I look forward to your response.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 17, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I think there's a difference between saying "I don't think I'd have fun playing 4e" or even "4e is a stinking turd," on the one hand, and saying "4e is a boardgame with no roleplaying which could only appeal to the juvenile," on  the other. The latter is an assertion of fact which is pretty confrontational. The former two are expressions of dislike which are, if sincere, uncontestable (other than perhaps flouting the forum language prohibitions).




I'm more refering to this exact thread, in which a moderator flat out stated it wasn't for defending 4e or insulting those who dislike it, but turned into just that.

Seriously?  Where's the moderation?  This is why some people honestly feel EN World is for people who like 4e only.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I'm more refering to this exact thread, in which a moderator flat out stated it wasn't for defending 4e or insulting those who dislike it, but turned into just that.
> 
> Seriously?  Where's the moderation?  This is why some people honestly feel EN World is for people who like 4e only.



 I'd honestly prefer if people who don't like a particular thing *find something else* to talk about -- or fix it.

If you like 3e, fine: we can discuss that.

If you like Mutants & Masterminds, cool: tell me about it.

However, I have less than zero interest in a support-group for nurturing nerd rage.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 17, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, it can be kind of selfish to not even consdier the contribution your character will make to the group; the group may simply not need another rogue, for instance, so no matter how hard you try to find a way to fit in, playing one might mean that you don't earn your keep.




I'm not sure I agree with that.  Players can *always* contribute to the group.  In my games, I've never demanded a player play a certain role.  I usually just say "Hey, these are the characters we have already.  Over here is a list of the roles that haven't been filled.  Choose what you want to do, but I won't force you to pick a certain type of character.

Banshee


----------



## billd91 (Jun 17, 2008)

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Rogues need to use thievery to unlock doors and disable traps. So, skills have a bigger role out of combat, even if only slightly. Let's take it a step further.




Are  you trying to say this is different from 3e?



			
				fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> The barbarian/fighter of 3.5 likely has a low intelligence, preferring to have strength and constitution instead. So, they have maybe 1 or 2 trained skills to level up each level. So, they can climb and jump outside of combat and that's about it. In 4th edition, each class has around 4 trained skills no matter what your intelligence is. So, now in 4th edition, the group as a whole has more out of combat options than ever. Skills play a role for every single player at the table. So where is the restriction? Where is the "4E has no out of combat?"




Except that some skills from the previous edition are off the table. Need to repair your armor or make arrows when you run out? I'm not even sure if that's in the rules in 4e, but they were in 3e. So, more options? Not really. A few of the character classes may have more trained skills but that doesn't exactly translate to more options.



			
				fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> I look at the table for the core classes and see Saves, Base Attack Bonus, Feats, Special Abilities, nothing to do with skills.




That's because they chose to give the players plenty of choice in picking the skills they spent their skill ranks on. There were always more skills than a PC had ranks. It allowed you a great deal of control in customizing the character they way you wanted to customize it. But there were classes that offered special bonuses on skills in their class/level tables.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Would this mean it's best to have all abilities randomly designed with no underlying system?




No!!  That way lies Palladium ;()


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 17, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Are  you trying to say this is different from 3e?



Oh, no, sorry, I was unclear there. I just meant that you can do what you did in 3E(in this case, rogue stuff,) and a little more, given the new use of skills in rituals. Good point on the crafting, but is that enough to say that 4E is completely restrictive and devoid of options to the point of unplayability? To be clear, as I said before and will say again, I just want the judgment of 4E to be fair, I don't want to prove 4.0's dad can beat up 3.5's dad.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> Except that some skills from the previous edition are off the table. Need to repair your armor or make arrows when you run out? I'm not even sure if that's in the rules in 4e, but they were in 3e. So, more options? Not really. A few of the character classes may have more trained skills but that doesn't exactly translate to more options.



Hmm, good point, there is a complete lack of crafting 4E, which is something I don't really like, but as far as I'm concerned I never had skill points to put in things like that. But on your other point, how does having more trained skills not lead to more options? If a skill is an option, and 4E gives you more skills, 4E gives you more options. I'm not sure how you define option here. In another way, each class having more skills gives you more option of what to do. If you want to play a stealth campaign, you aren't losing very much by either selecting stealth at first level or taking skill training, seeing as how you get much more feats than you did in 3E. That wasn't really as good of option in 3E, unless you counted a beguiler using zone of silence and invisibility sphere to completely negate the point of Move Silently and Hide. The same applies to any skill, say you want all your characters to use rituals, everyone can get skill training in arcana or religion and then can get ritual casting. Sounds like an option to me. Warlocks have access to thievery, so can take over the job of a rogue if need be. Option.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> That's because they chose to give the players plenty of choice in picking the skills they spent their skill ranks on. There were always more skills than a PC had ranks. It allowed you a great deal of control in customizing the character they way you wanted to customize it. But there were classes that offered special bonuses on skills in their class/level tables.



Same in 4E. More skills to choose from than you can have. What classes had skill bonuses on their tables in core 3.5? Anyway, the customization aspect is definitely there, inside and outside of combat. It doesn't matter if 3.5 has more or less, I just want to know what is the threshold that 4.0 must have to be considered having options, for my own curiosity, because I think some are being unfair in their judgment of 4E.


----------



## Arthnek (Jun 17, 2008)

Hi Fuzzle =D

To answer your last question regarding how many options should a game have to have enough.  In my opinion 3.5 had it just about spot on so that I as a dungeonmaster or player could decide...ok I want to create a priestess of Mask or a priest of Bane.  I look over the list of the hundred plus spells and I plot out the types of spells I think will most reflect a cleric of a god of thievies or a god of hate.  I look over the massive list of feats and finally decide whether it makes the most sense for me to play my character as a straight cleric or bounce back and forth between cleric and rogue.

In 4e there is almost no difference between the priest of one god or goddess and another.  THey all begin play with the same narrow range of powers.  Character alignment has little to no impact on priestly powers either.

To my mind this creates a very generic universe and one which I have a very hard time getting excited to play in or create adventures for.

Alignments

You may not like alignments in the old edition but they at least had a certain lore and tradition closely tied into the pantheons and histories of settings spanning back thirty years.  The new alignment structure is about the worst possible approach I can imagine.  Its like they gave the alignment issue about ten minutes of thought during a coffee break and just rolled with whatever came to mind.

I mean I can play a character which is "good" or "super duper good" or I can play a character which is "evil" or "super chaos lord gangsta vampire puppy stabbing evil".  My other option is to play with team "unaligned" which seems to include most of the gods.  

They would have been better off just abandoning the entire alignment structure altogether as this new one is pretty poorly put together in my opinion.

A short list of other issues...

Players are discouraged from rolling characters.  Everyone is supposed to be the same vanilla just slightly above average character (which pretty much describes the entire flavor of the books to me).
No rolling hit points.
First level feats are assigned.
First level power options are so narrow that you might as well pick the recommended options because there aren't any or many beyond what is recommended for you.  This means that every cleric, fighter, paladin while not exactly the same is darn close.  Sameness on that scale to my mind as a DM = boring.
Gods - The starting list of gods presented in the PHB looks like someone took a few gods from the Realms, a few from Greyhawk, a few from other campaigns and put them into a box, shook them up and randomly picked out eleven as the new gods of DnD.  There is no feel of a mythos to any of it.
Monsters - monsters are crunchy hero clix figures now with little to no information on their behavior, habitat or means of fitting into a DM's setting.  Just a collection of combat stats.
Minions - The perfect thing to ambush a party with in huge numbers provided the monsters win initiative.  A single initiative roll can sway an entire battle determining whether the scads of one hit point minions all get their shots off first or the players pop off their AOE's and drop them before they have a chance to fire.
Moving and Sliding in Combat - Ok this is cool but we've played this sort of thing forever in other game systems it is only new to DnD.

The last bit that bothers me is the assumption that first through third level was a bummer to play.  I really enjoy playing the low levels.  Those levels can be some of the most fun times in an entire campaign both as a player and as a DM.  

Don't get me wrong.  I was really looking forward to this edition.  All the hype online certainly made it sound awesome.  I was the one banging the drum for 4th edition in my local gaming group.  I can't tell you how disappointed I was to see what feels like the heart and soul of the game gutted in order to turn the thing into a vehicle for selling a hero clix style board game that used to be dungeons and dragons.

Again just my opinion.  Lots of people love the new game.  I'm probably just old and set in my ways but I'm sticking with my old books.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 17, 2008)

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Hmm, your response was so brief Nellisir you left me nothing to work with, speaking only to the effect of 'no, you're wrong.' I look forward to a more in depth response to my points.



Dude, I'm closing on my house in two weeks.  I'm working full-time finishing it (and by finishing I mean railings, cabinets, trim, siding, windows), plus packing 8 years of stuff for two adults, a toddler, two dogs, and two cats, and putting it all in storage because we haven't had time to buy a new house.  Going back and slowly explaining my original post to you is not extremely high on my list of priorities.

Defender, striker, controller, leader are all descriptions of mechanical roles that a character takes in combat.  They are not thematic roles.  The "original" "core" classes - fighter, wizard, cleric, thief - are thematic.  They relate to a theme, not a mechanism.  4e has elevated the mechanical roles above the thematic roles.


----------



## Buzzardo (Jun 17, 2008)

For the record.  I am old school.  Been playing since age 12 in 1980.  

I have been reading the 4.0 PHB (better called the CHB in my opinion (Combat Hand Book) for the last 2 days.

I am totally dismayed.   

My 1 word review of 4e:  SOULLESS

This is a huge strategic blunder on the part of Hasbro/Wotc in a business sense, and a catastophe for the game I love.  

There is more to the game than fighting, combat and killing stuff!!!!!

Aarrgghh!!!

WOTC is already in damage control mode in industry publications, trying to put down the backlash from FLGS owners getting flack from their regulars.  Urging FLGS owners to just "shut up and take the money" because they believe they can shove it down our throats, and that we have no choice.  

Anybody want to buy a slightly used 4e PHB?  $25.  Message me and I'll give you my paypal details...


----------



## Felix (Jun 17, 2008)

Buzzardo said:
			
		

> WOTC is already in damage control mode in industry publications



Eh? Fill me in on this, if you have the chance.

Also, are stores not accepting returns on the 4e PHB?


----------



## Buzzardo (Jun 17, 2008)

I haven't tried to return it, but that is a good idea.  I didn't keep the receipt.  Never had the slightest thought of trying to return a single gaming product in 28 years.  This is a first for me.

I have a buddy in a neighboring town that owns a FLGS.  I called him today to get his impressions.  He is not happy with 4e, but it is selling well for him.

He told me had read several industry mags (he didn't specify which ones... I presume Game Trader was one...).  He said that the tone is that many store owners have complained to their WOTC reps directly, and many more have passed on complaints from customers.  

WOTC offical line is: quit complaining and just take the money.  The stuff is selling well and just wait and see.  It will all work out in the end and everyone will be happy, when they warm up to it.

That is all I know.  I'll call him again tommorow and get more details.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 17, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Dude, I'm closing on my house in two weeks.  I'm working full-time finishing it...
> 
> ...Defender, striker, controller, leader are all descriptions of mechanical roles that a character takes in combat.  They are not thematic roles.  The "original" "core" classes - fighter, wizard, cleric, thief - are thematic.  They relate to a theme, not a mechanism.  4e has elevated the mechanical roles above the thematic roles.



Whoa, a bit hostile there, was I supposed to know about your current condition? And is there any reason you expect that I think you should consider me high on your list of priorities? Uh, well, good luck with your moving anyway. Can someone else explain the difference between 3E roles and 4E roles? As far as I can tell, the striker, defender, controller and leader are thematic as well as mechanical, just like "thief, wizard, cleric, fighter" In combat, the rogue sneak attacks, the wizard casts, the cleric heals, and the fighter takes the hits. So the roles relate to a mechanism. You have the cunning, the wise, the healer, I suppose, and the tough. The roles relate to a theme. So, if anything, both editions are the same. Even if one edition emphasizes one or the other, what's wrong with that? Sorry, I'm a bit lost on this.



			
				Arthnek said:
			
		

> Hi Fuzzle =D



Hi, how are you? Well, I of course can't really change your mindset, but in relation to clerics I never felt there was an insane amount of choice. I mean, you picked your 2 domains and the 1 domain spell a day was what made you different from the other clerics. As far as good and evil clerics, Inflict Wounds sucks. A lot. I wouldn't say a huge list of feats, there wasn't that much to choose from in core 3.5, in terms of optimum feats. As far as the huge list of spells, for sure, 3.5 absolutely wins here. But when you consider the balance that had to be made since every class now has a list of spells, I'm not too bothered. I suppose we'll always differ on this point. If you want a cleric/rogue, this is possible in 4E too, even if 'multi-classing is a joke.' A level 10 Cleric/Level 10 rogue I think would be a real joke, being absolute junk to a level 20 cleric, due to loss of spell level. In 4E, at least you're not losing spell level and you're gaining rogue abilities if you so desire.

The new alignment system gets rid of Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral, and Lawful Evil. I can't argue with your experience I'm sure, seeing as how your saying the old alignments go back 30 years, but I'm not sure how junking these alignments is the 'worst possible approach you could imagine.' I mean, why not? To paraphrase one of the articles talking about the new alignment, what was the difference between Chaotic Good and Neutral Good? Did they really see any differently? Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil the same way. You can either follow the laws or break the laws. Assuming evil, if you don't care about breaking laws, Chaotic Evil is a good approach, if you do slightly, then Evil is the best approach. I respect your opinion, but on this point I don't see why you think it's terrible.

As far as rolling for stats, that sucked for my group. If you used rerolls in your game, you might as well have been using point buy. If not, then people could roll terribly and be in the same group with average and above average people. Maybe having a character with 4 negative stats was a fun roleplaying opportunity or something, but to me that's just unworkable characters. Rolling a 1 on hitpoints was crippling, and martial classes of 3.5 had not much choice in core, no more than 4E for sure. Powers, powers, powers. You have to pick one out of four encounter powers at first level, one out of four dailies, and this repeats every time you get a new encounter or daily. So, plenty of option, for _all_ classes.


----------



## Aqua Vitae (Jun 17, 2008)

Buzzardo said:
			
		

> I am totally dismayed.
> 
> My 1 word review of 4e:  SOULLESS




I second that.



> WOTC is already in damage control mode in industry publications, trying to put down the backlash from FLGS owners getting flack from their regulars.  Urging FLGS owners to just "shut up and take the money" because they believe they can shove it down our throats, and that we have no choice.




And they can rely on this assumption, too, as people will buy the product simply because WotC have annexed "D&D" to it.



> Anybody want to buy a slightly used 4e PHB?  $25.  Message me and I'll give you my paypal details...




I returned mine to my bookstore.

They asked, "And why do you wish to return this product?"

I replied, "I thought it was D&D."


----------



## Aqua Vitae (Jun 17, 2008)

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Can someone else explain the difference between 3E roles and 4E roles? As far as I can tell, the striker, defender, controller and leader are thematic as well as mechanical, just like "thief, wizard, cleric, fighter" In combat, the rogue sneak attacks, the wizard casts, the cleric heals, and the fighter takes the hits. So the roles relate to a mechanism. You have the cunning, the wise, the healer, I suppose, and the tough. The roles relate to a theme.




Because they are roles that relate to combat.  That is how they are defined.  A "striker," "defender," "controller," and "leader" where combat is concerned.  If it is thematic at all, it is only such in relation to combat.

What I liked about previous editions was that the class, and its name, conveyed thematic elements thereof.  There wasn't a need for some meta-classification in terms of combat roles, along the silly lines of "striker," et al.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Aqua Vitae said:
			
		

> Because they are roles that relate to combat.  That is how they are defined.  A "striker," "defender," "controller," and "leader" where combat is concerned.  If it is thematic at all, it is only such in relation to combat.
> 
> What I liked about previous editions was that the class, and its name, conveyed thematic elements thereof.  There wasn't a need for some meta-classification in terms of combat roles, along the silly lines of "striker," et al.



 I wasn't aware that "paladin" in 3E conveyed thematic elements, but "paladin" in 4E doesn't.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 17, 2008)

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Can someone else explain the difference between 3E roles and 4E roles? As far as I can tell, the striker, defender, controller and leader are thematic as well as mechanical, just like "thief, wizard, cleric, fighter" In combat, the rogue sneak attacks, the wizard casts, the cleric heals, and the fighter takes the hits. So the roles relate to a mechanism. You have the cunning, the wise, the healer, I suppose, and the tough. The roles relate to a theme. So, if anything, both editions are the same. Even if one edition emphasizes one or the other, what's wrong with that? Sorry, I'm a bit lost on this.




There's an element of cart going before the horse in 4e. In previous editions, particularly early D&D and AD&D, the 4 roles as distilled by 4e weren't very well defined. Yes, the fighter and cleric tended to stand in front because they had the best ACs and the best hit points, but that was about the only element of a mechanical role they had. Thieves had a significant backstab, but it was hard to put it into play and only worked on a single blow, whereupon surprise would be lost, thus mooting any further attempts to backstab. 

Mechanics were built more around thematic ideas (cleric as templar, fighter as close-in combat monster, etc) than some overarching structure of "roles" in combat. Mechanics in 4e are derived from the role assigned to the character and not the other way around.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2008)

People look at the combat role of a class, and complain it has no thematic elements. Why?

Ever looked at the power source? This introduces your _first_ real thematic element (though I'd argue that it's also a theme whether I "lead" people in combat or "control" the battle-field. But it's only the combat theme)

And then, have you looked at the actual classes? 
There is the Ranger, there is the Rogue. Both are Martial Strikers. 
If it's true that the classes of 4E do not offer any thematic elements, or are not designed around them, why do these different classes exist? 
Did you look at all their powers? Especially the utility powers? Don't you see the thematic differences?


----------



## Rel (Jun 17, 2008)

There's getting to be way too much confrontation rather than friendly discourse in this thread.  If I come in here in the morning and find that anybody has acted like a jackass, I'm banning them for a week.  Post carefully.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> People look at the combat role of a class, and complain it has no thematic elements. Why?
> 
> Ever looked at the power source? This introduces your _first_ real thematic element (though I'd argue that it's also a theme whether I "lead" people in combat or "control" the battle-field. But it's only the combat theme)
> 
> ...




Again, it's more a question of putting the cart before the horse. The thematic elements of the classes in 4e are grafted on to the mechanical framework derived from the striker or defender role.

By contrast, in 1e, a character could choose his role in the party in a variety of ways because the mechanics of the class were derived from it's thematic elements and weren't tied to specific roles. Some roles presented themselves more strongly, but others were viable including heavily armored rangers and lightly armored skirmish fighters.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Some roles presented themselves more strongly, but others were viable including heavily armored rangers and lightly armored skirmish fighters.



In my experience a lightly-armoured fighter was not at all viable in 1st ed AD&D - the chances of getting hit were just too great. This was particulary so at mid-to-high levels, where monsters to-hit chances started to grow more slowly with hit dice, and therefore increasing AC becomes quite important to avoid getting hit.

Against a 6 HD monster, for example, increasing AC from (for example) 5 (leather +1 and shield +1) to (for example) -1 (field plate +1 and shield +1) halves the chance to be hit (from 9+ needed on D20 to 15+ required).


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 17, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Not all encounters can be solved by combat and not all potential combat encounters need to be fought if the suitable application of a skill can suffice.




For sure, but this is also true in 4e, thus reinforcing my point.


----------



## Imp (Jun 17, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> In my experience a lightly-armoured fighter was not at all viable in 1st ed AD&D - the chances of getting hit were just too great.



Bracers AC whatever, your tool for increased roleplaying breadth in 1st ed. Advanced Dungeons And Dragons. Yup, that's how I played it.

No, you can't have them, Beardy McDelayedBlastFireball, I'm getting outta this sweaty ol' armor!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Again, it's more a question of putting the cart before the horse. The thematic elements of the classes in 4e are grafted on to the mechanical framework derived from the striker or defender role.
> 
> By contrast, in 1e, a character could choose his role in the party in a variety of ways because the mechanics of the class were derived from it's thematic elements and weren't tied to specific roles. Some roles presented themselves more strongly, but others were viable including heavily armored rangers and lightly armored skirmish fighters.




I am not sure I can agree with the cart & horse analogy. The question for me is only if the results meet the thematic goals of each class, and they do.

And I actually think that the description of the process is more like this:
"Okay, we have these archetype/class. What Role and what Power Source fit it best?"
"Hmm. Ranger. Typically fighting with bows. Could be control."
"Nah, bows are usually used against single targets, unless we're speaking about whole archery units. And what's with the two-weapon fighting Ranger. He's popular, and he's fun?"
"Hmm. Could be Defense. But it could also be concentrated firepower on a single target."
"Rangers are also good trackers, stealthy and mobile in the wild. I think that points out to skirmisher. I don't really see them as standing long against a single enemy, especially if you think of the 'lone ranger' archetype"
"Okay, I think then Striker fits best. But what power source? He casts spells in 3E. Should be divine?"
"Ranger spellcasting was never seen as his greatest feature. It felt a little tacked on. I am not sure a Ranger really has to have a strong relation to the gods."
"Rangers usually focus on weapons and skills. Looks very martial to me.
"I agree. So, we have it a Martial Striker. Okay, guys, it's time to design a few striker powers now. The attacks hould probably be related to archery and melee combat. Utility powers should have to do with stealth, movement and nature..."

And repeat this for every class.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that "paladin" in 3E conveyed thematic elements, but "paladin" in 4E doesn't.



I haven't read the 4e paladin, but there's a reason why I stuck (and am sticking) to the 4 primary classes as examples and references.  They have stronger/more frequent references outside of D&D, and there might be 4e classes with stronger thematic elements, like the fighter.  I don't think it's mandatory in 4e; I think it was a choice by the designers.  It'll probably mitigate to some degree with more splat books.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 17, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Again, it's more a question of putting the cart before the horse. The thematic elements of the classes in 4e are grafted on to the mechanical framework derived from the striker or defender role.
> 
> By contrast, in 1e, a character could choose his role in the party in a variety of ways because the mechanics of the class were derived from it's thematic elements and weren't tied to specific roles. Some roles presented themselves more strongly, but others were viable including heavily armored rangers and lightly armored skirmish fighters.



Yes.

And for the record (going back to my original post), I never said thematic elements were impossible: I said I thought they were more locked down or restricted (archer fighter?  Nope.  Spear-wielding ranger, or sword & shield ranger? nope.) and kludgier (I'm looking at you, multiclassing!)


----------



## Ginnel (Jun 17, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> And for the record (going back to my original post), I never said thematic elements were impossible: I said I thought they were more locked down or restricted (archer fighter?  Nope.  Spear-wielding ranger, or sword & shield ranger? nope.) and kludgier (I'm looking at you, multiclassing!)




If you can make a character in armor who uses a bow from the ranger class why would you need to do it in the fighter class as well?

Same with the spear put it in the hands of a fighter put the fighter in light armor have dex quite high as well as strength all done, give the fighter skill training nature from a feat and also perception is you wish for that woodsman vibe. Sword and shield ranger yet again same as the spear guy although you could have heavy or light armor with this then again take a rogue and get him to have shield proficiency it all works.

I think I can quote this as a statement of fact, just because there is the word fighter in your class box does not mean you can't describe your character as a ranger.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 17, 2008)

Ginnel said:
			
		

> If you can make a character in armor who uses a bow from the ranger class why would you need to do it in the fighter class as well?




The question is not one of "need". We had an edition where this sort of flexibility was a given. This edition says that flexibility is "unfun" because we might make the "wrong" choices with it. So, now you can't make the character you want, but have to settle for something else, because if you could make what you wanted, you might make an "unfun" choice.

3e was all about choices and having multiple paths to similar ends. 4e is all about protecting you from making choices and giving you only one clear "fun" path to each end.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 17, 2008)

Ginnel said:
			
		

> If you can make a character in armor who uses a bow from the ranger class why would you need to do it in the fighter class as well?



And I think that makes my point about mechanical elements ascending over thematic ones as well as any of my posts.   Why indeed?

I'm retiring from this thread for awhile*.  Everyone is talking past one another, sometimes in completely different languages.  Suffice to say, not everyone is happy that archer must equal ranger, or that ranger must equal two-weapon fighter or archer, or that a minor change to the theme of a class requires a whole new suite of powers.  If you are, that's cool.  I look forward to trying out 4e.  I suspect it will be fun.  But I still feel that they tossed the baby with the bathwater.

Cheers

*I'm not annoyed or anything; I just think the conversation is going in circles.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jun 17, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> I'd let this stand if we were talking about a single class monk or bard, but we're not. How often were monsters defeated by social skills, anyway?




It happens about every third game session in my current campaign. Recently, my rogue/fighter/invisible blade used his awesome Bluff skills to lead the entire party into enemy territory in order to sit down with a group of evil guards, have lunch, play cards, get information on the general layout of the area, troop strengths, et cetera.

Claiming X is broken because Person A can do this compared to Person B doing this other thing is like claiming that my car is broken because my wife drives too slow whereas I can consistently do at least the speed limit.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 17, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, it can be kind of selfish to not even consdier the contribution your character will make to the group; the group may simply not need another rogue, for instance, so no matter how hard you try to find a way to fit in, playing one might mean that you don't earn your keep.





This type of thinking is why its important to play in a group that enjoys a playstlye close to your own. In our group we game to have fun and entertain each other. It doesn't matter if we have three fighters, no one plays a cleric, ect. The contribution to the group is the same for everyone. Have fun playing a character you will enjoy and do your best to entertain everyone else at the table. Worrying about everyone doing thier job and contributing to the group seems more like work and less like fun. Its a type of mentality I see in MMO's where "winning" against the foes is everything and players are berated, insulted, and kicked out of groups because they are not playing up to par. I understand this group dynamic for videogames but I would never bring it to the tabletop.


----------



## rounser (Jun 17, 2008)

> The question for me is only if the results meet the thematic goals of each class, and they do.



I disagree. If your thesis were correct, if the horse was in fact in front of the cart, then the warlord wouldn't exist for starters.  It's a bunch of powers with a name attached, and no reason for being in the PHB beyond that.

There's a lot of obvious shoehorning going on, of square pegs being forced into round holes.  The hint is when you have to invoke Die Hard or simply can't envision what some power looks like "in real life".


----------



## Psion (Jun 17, 2008)

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Whoa, a bit hostile there, was I supposed to know about your current condition? And is there any reason you expect that I think you should consider me high on your list of priorities? Uh, well, good luck with your moving anyway. Can someone else explain the difference between 3E roles and 4E roles? As far as I can tell, the striker, defender, controller and leader are thematic as well as mechanical, just like "thief, wizard, cleric, fighter" In combat, the rogue sneak attacks, the wizard casts, the cleric heals, and the fighter takes the hits. So the roles relate to a mechanism.




I think its a mistake to say that roles weren't mechanical before. I think the two major differences are:

1) The mechanical and thematic elements have been separated into layers. The mechanical roles are now _roles_; the thematic elements are relegated to the classes which fit within those roles. Before they were less distinct (but you could still argue with the class/subclass structure in 1e, they existed as roles, not just classes.)
2) Implicit in the above, the mechanical elements/roles are now balanced almost exclusively around combat. Before, it seems some consideration was given to out of combat threats. Dating back to 1e, you need a rogue (as a "role") because you needed someone to deal with traps, not because you needed someone to backstab/sneak attack in combat. It was as much or more a dungeon exploration RPG than a combat RPG.

I certainly think that the new role structure does create limits on how the thematic "roles" look and act.


----------



## Andor (Jun 17, 2008)

4e has built into itself protection from anything the designers considered to be badwrongfun. For example in the playtest reports they heard about a rogue weilding a greataxe because nothing prevented him from doing it. So they listed a specific set of weapons the rogue can use his sneak attack with. We are fine up to this point, there are mechanical reasons for wanting to limit rogues to a 'lesser' set of weapons. 

So naturally they included a feat to expand the range of useable weapons because it becomes balanced with the feat expenditure, right? Wrong. Because it's not just that a rogue with a greataxe is unbalanced. It'd badwrongfun and didn't fit someones 'vision' of the game. What makes this an even crueler irony is the short shrift given to flavor in just about every other aspect of the game.

4e is so damm unpolished it makes me cringe. Someone on the design team should march into the office of whoever set that development schedule and kick their testicles into low earth orbit.


----------



## EATherrian (Jun 17, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, it can be kind of selfish to not even consdier the contribution your character will make to the group; the group may simply not need another rogue, for instance, so no matter how hard you try to find a way to fit in, playing one might mean that you don't earn your keep.




If I was called on to fill a role, I would gleefully.  I joined late with several groups, they told me what they lacked and I played it.  If I play from the beginning, I play what I want and let the game grow organically.  I'm pretty easy as far as what class I play goes.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I disagree. If your thesis were correct, if the horse was in fact in front of the cart, then the warlord wouldn't exist for starters.  It's a bunch of powers with a name attached, and no reason for being in the PHB beyond that.



Sorry, the Warlord feels very thematic to me. Without ever having seen any of the powers, I was intrigued by the idea.

I will not try to convince you otherwise. I just come the conclusion that their is stuff we can't agree on. This is one of them. The Warlord is one of the few archetypes I always wanted to play, but there was just no good rule representation for him. The closest was the Bard, but I didn't want to sing or cast spells due be someone leading a group into combat. I wanted to rely on tactics and martial skills.

But then, I am also a fan of Grand Admiral Thrawn. He might be utterly unrealistic with his ability to predict enemy actions based on the art of their culture, but his tactical and strategic genius felt just interesting. The trilogy around him still are my favorite books in the Star Wars franchise.

Similar, the idea of Battle Meditation from the KotoR was also very interesting for me (though we're back to the "magic" issue with the Bard)


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 17, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think its a mistake to say that roles weren't mechanical before. I think the two major differences are:
> 
> 1) The mechanical and thematic elements have been separated into layers. The mechanical roles are now _roles_; the thematic elements are relegated to the classes which fit within those roles. Before they were less distinct (but you could still argue with the class/subclass structure in 1e, they existed as roles, not just classes.)
> 2) Implicit in the above, the mechanical elements/roles are now balanced almost exclusively around combat. Before, it seems some consideration was given to out of combat threats. Dating back to 1e, you need a rogue (as a "role") because you needed someone to deal with traps, not because you needed someone to backstab/sneak attack in combat. It was as much or more a dungeon exploration RPG than a combat RPG.
> ...




Yeah, short retirement.    
Psion, I think you nailed it almost exactly.  I certainly wouldn't say that roles weren't mechanical, or didn't include mechanics, before 4e - they certainly did.  And some classes were more "mechanical" or less iconic than others.

I think your "dungeon exploration" vs combat is extremely true.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> 2) Implicit in the above, the mechanical elements/roles are now balanced almost exclusively around combat. Before, it seems some consideration was given to out of combat threats. Dating back to 1e, you need a rogue (as a "role") because you needed someone to deal with traps, not because you needed someone to backstab/sneak attack in combat. It was as much or more a dungeon exploration RPG than a combat RPG.
> 
> I certainly think that the new role structure does create limits on how the thematic "roles" look and act.



I think I agree on the limits. The problem of games can be that you don't know what the "users" are doing with it - are they running all dungeon exploration? Focus on combat, or on trap-finding? Do they run city-intrigue campaigns? Wilderness Exploration? 
So, the problem is always to find a good balance in the classes to create the possible imbalances of the players focus.

3E at least started, and 4E possibly finished creating this balancing by ensuring that everyone has combat abilities that matter, and also ensure that there is something outside of combat. But the focus is still more on combat then anything else. Skill Challenges are an attempt to have an engaging subsystem outside of combat, but it is a very generic framework, unlike the combat rules. I am not sure yet if that is the best approach, or if there are better ones.

This in turn means that 4E has no space for a class that just doesn't fight. It must do something in combat. (And they must do something outside of it.) They don't necessarily have to swing swords or shoot fireballs, but whatever the do, they must contribute in combat. And they must do it just as well as any other class of their type. So, the role getting closed to non-combatant might be a Leader (only buffing, no direct damage) or a Controller (only debuffing, no direct damage). That's still a serious limitation on what a class can encompass.

But that said, I can't really see it any other way. I wouldn't be interested in a non-combat class anyway. But it might be a problem for other people.


----------



## rounser (Jun 17, 2008)

> But then, I am also a fan of Grand Admiral Thrawn. He might be utterly unrealistic with his ability to predict enemy actions based on the art of their culture, but his tactical and strategic genius felt just interesting. The trilogy around him still are my favorite books in the Star Wars franchise.



I won't bother arguing this one out again, but the fact you chose a general with an army at his beck and call says it all.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 17, 2008)

*To Psion,* the classes seem to play to their thematic element first. Paladins are using divine powers that heal at level one. What does that have to do with their mechanical role of Defender? Nothing. What about any class being able to do damage except for the striker? How about the wizard being able to cast Light, Ghost Sound, Presdigitation, and Mage Hand? Thematic or mechanical? Yeah. How about a fighter being able to use different weapons with different effects, even if minor. Mechanical or thematic? To the dungeon exploration, it must be a group preference thing. My group was bored to tears when I played the rogue, as I searched every nook and cranny while they sat back, talked about things outside of D&D or grabbed a Mountain Dew. Actually, I wasn't having fun either, I just knew the group would be screwed if I didn't search for traps. In any case, now each class has a selection of skills and each has a reasonable option of filling that sector of dungeon exploration. All you need is perception and thievery. Some classes have them as class skills, otherwise grab the skill training or appropriate multi-class feat. 

*Oh, and, to ExploderWizard*, it's not a question of how the game is played, it's how it's designed. 3.5, which is what I can speak for, was designed with having the 4 iconic roles, fighter, mage, cleric, thief, in mind. That's how monsters were balanced, against Regdar, Mialee, Jozan and Lidda. If you can succeed otherwise, holy crap, that's amazing, but the DM is probably pulling some strings and turning the game a bit. If not, I'm awestruck that you are able to get anywhere in a dungeon sans a cleric. Or without a wizard.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The question is not one of "need". We had an edition where this sort of flexibility was a given. This edition says that flexibility is "unfun" because we might make the "wrong" choices with it. So, now you can't make the character you want, but have to settle for something else, because if you could make what you wanted, you might make an "unfun" choice.



 and 







			
				Nellisir said:
			
		

> And for the record (going back to my original post), I never said thematic elements were impossible: I said I thought they were more locked down or restricted (archer fighter? Nope. Spear-wielding ranger, or sword & shield ranger? nope.) and kludgier (I'm looking at you, multiclassing!)



 Fighters have bow proficiency in 4th edition. All simple and military ranged weapons. If you want ranger powers with your ranged weapon, multiclass. If you think that is a bad option, which is isn't, really, then be a ranger, and get armor feats and toughness and now you're the fighter basically. If you wanted to be a fighter who is as good at using the bow as a ranger, then that's too good, simply enough. Because then you're covering two roles equally awesomely in one fell swoop. Was that the goal here?

Rangers can use all simple and military melee, including the spear. Yep. From the "Archer Ranger" choice in the players handbook. "You are a master of the bow (or, rarely, the crossbow, sling, or thrown weapon)." Well, the spear isn't a ranged weapon, but I thought that was cool. Feel free to throw javelins instead of using a bow and arrow. So is 4E still restrictive? If you want to use a spear, pick two-weapon fighting option, *because no where in that section does it say you're required to actually use two weapons.* Some powers, however, require that you do. But not all! Some good powers are flexible and say "Melee or Ranged Weapon" as a requirement, including encounter powers and daily powers at first level, so spear fits into that category. If you want to use a two-weapon power, hold a dagger in your off-hand as you swing around your spear. Please research this option before you say 4E is horribly restrictive. If you want to use a board with your sword, sorry, you'll need to spend a feat. One feat. So, those are the two examples given that can be done, quite easily. I hope this gets through to you guys.

But I mean, is this going to be it? A back and forth as someone comes up with examples that 4E doesn't seem to support on face so they can eventually be right and prove that 4E in fact has no flexibility, is unpolished, is for 10-year-olds, and all around sucks? I guess people will be set in their ways.

Look forward to a response, I have to be off for now.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I won't bother arguing this one out again, but the fact you chose a general with an army at his beck and call says it all.



And I am not allowed to have this on a tactical scale? It is thematically inappropriate? Yes, let's agree to disagree.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 17, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> I'd let this stand if we were talking about a single class monk or bard, but we're not. How often were monsters defeated by social skills, anyway? If orcs ambush you, you don't have time for your one minute diplomacy check, and even then you have to get some silly number that  a multiclass bard/monk isn't going to have.




How often were monsters defeated by social skills?  Pretty dang often in my experience.  Encounter some dimwitted ogres guarding the cave entrance?  Some Disguise and Bluff skills later and the ogres are letting the PC's in because they say they are envoys from the Evil Kingdom out there that their boss wants to ally with.  Run across some orc highwaymen demanding tribute or they attack?  You could intimidate them, or bluff them into thinking you're working for their boss and on the same side or don't have any money, or play nice and talk with them long enough for the rogue and/or ranger to sneak around and take them out while they are distracted (which case they aren't being defeated by the social skills, but it's making a wonderful stalling tactic). 

Oh, and why wouldn't a bard/monk be a social skill expert?  The bard gets all the social skills, monks get diplomacy and sense motive.  If you started out as a bard and multiclassed to monk you could still spend cross-class costs to keep bluff & intimidate at maximum.   Heck, if you multiclassed to Monk after only 2 or 3 levels of Bard you could even eventually get Tongue of the Sun and Moon which helps monks be uber socialites.   I think a Bard/Monk would be a really interesting and fun character. . .a charming bard who retired to a monastery and now is the pleasant public "faceman" for his monastery that they like to send on missions away from their cloisters because he is more adept at working with the outside world, while he is still a skilled martial artist his bardic training long ago gives him some unusual knowledge and magical abilities that make him distinct among the monks of his order. 



> If Augment Healing doesn't "fit a campaign", why does healing magic even exist?



Because in that campaign healing magic may exist, but it's rare and teachings and techniques that modify it haven't been developed yet, or healing magic is relatively weak because of the ever-oppressive influence of dark forces and being able to amplify healing magic as easily as taking a feat isn't going to be possible?  Like in pre-War of the Lance Dragonlance when there was no true divine spellcasters and if there was any healing magic it was from Bards (if that) or wizards that had researched very weak and inefficient healing spells, so healing magic was incredibly rare on it's own and Augment Healing just wasn't out there.


----------



## Turanil (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'd honestly prefer if people who don't like a particular thing *find something else* to talk about -- or fix it.
> 
> If you like 3e, fine: we can discuss that.
> 
> ...



What are you doing reading this thread then?


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 18, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> How often were monsters defeated by social skills?  Pretty dang often in my experience.




Now someone tell me why this can't be done in 4e, since that was the original argument leveled.


----------

