PDA

View Full Version : My opinions (and your's) on 4th Edition



YvizztX23
2009-10-18, 06:08 PM
So, I've been looking around online, and I've seen a lot of peoples' opinions on 4E...many of them negative. Why? Why does no one like 4E?

This being my first experience with D&D, I went into it with no prejudice because it was new, or because they got rid of some feature, or because I had just gotten the 3.5 rules and did not want another edition.

I've looked at the old rules. I, in fact, have two 2nd Edition AD&D books that I found for $3.50 each at a library book sale. I skimmed through them. BUT I CANNOT FIGURE OUT WHY PEOPLE HAVE ISSUES WITH 4E!!!

I do not see why there is anything wrong with having the classes refined and balanced, the races changed a bit, combat made with strategy rather than immersion in mind. And there is, of course, the constant annoying, and weak, argument that it is made to emulate World of Warcraft. Comparing D&D to a MMORPG (Monotonous Meaningless Obligatory Repetitive Pointless Game) is downright insulting to such a great and classic hobby. I do not see where this idea stems from, because Wizards of the Coast, as bad as people would lead you to believe they are, would not betray D&D in such a way. They put much time and money into versions 3, 3.5, and 4.

The claim that 4E supposedly is more restrictive to roleplaying is not entirely true. That aspect is based off of the creativity of the players and especially the DM, not the rules.

My two complaints against 4E is as follows: They mucked up the alignments for some reason, and the official miniatures, which are highly necessary for combat, suck badly :smallfurious:. Fortunately, this is easy to fix. There's no reason not to use the old alignments, and you can use many things other than the official miniatures for combat. My friend and I have discovered that Lego minifigures work very well.

So, over all, I enjoy 4E, both as a DM and a Player (I do both!). The rules are refined and streamlined, and there is no reason, especially with all of the books filled with more character races, classes, and options, that anyone should feel left out.



What do you think?

Gamerlord
2009-10-18, 06:15 PM
So, I've been looking around online, and I've seen a lot of peoples' opinions on 4E...many of them negative. Why? Why does no one like 4E?

This being my first experience with D&D, I went into it with no prejudice because it was new, or because they got rid of some feature, or because I had just gotten the 3.5 rules and did not want another edition.

I've looked at the old rules. I, in fact, have two 2nd Edition AD&D books that I found for $3.50 each at a library book sale. I skimmed through them. BUT I CANNOT FIGURE OUT WHY PEOPLE HAVE ISSUES WITH 4E!!!

I do not see why there is anything wrong with having the classes refined and balanced, the races changed a bit, combat made with strategy rather than immersion in mind. And there is, of course, the constant annoying, and weak, argument that it is made to emulate World of Warcraft. Comparing D&D to a MMORPG (Monotonous Meaningless Obligatory Repetitive Pointless Game) is downright insulting to such a great and classic hobby. I do not see where this idea stems from, because Wizards of the Coast, as bad as people would lead you to believe they are, would not betray D&D in such a way. They put much time and money into versions 3, 3.5, and 4.

The claim that 4E supposedly is more restrictive to roleplaying is not entirely true. That aspect is based off of the creativity of the players and especially the DM, not the rules.

My two complaints against 4E is as follows: They mucked up the alignments for some reason, and the official miniatures, which are highly necessary for combat, suck badly :smallfurious:. Fortunately, this is easy to fix. There's no reason not to use the old alignments, and you can use many things other than the official miniatures for combat. My friend and I have discovered that Lego minifigures work very well.

So, over all, I enjoy 4E, both as a DM and a Player (I do both!). The rules are refined and streamlined, and there is no reason, especially with all of the books filled with more character races, classes, and options, that anyone should feel left out.



What do you think?

It is bad because it is D&D in name only, If it wasn't D&D, I bet people would love it. It is a fun game, but a oh-ye-gods-horrendous D&D edition.

Chrono22
2009-10-18, 06:17 PM
The search function is your friend. This line of questioning has been done a hundred times.

The Glyphstone
2009-10-18, 06:19 PM
{Scrubbed} this is a topic that has been hashed out roughly once every few weeks. Do a search, or just browse back a few pages, and you'll see far too much debate with vicious arguements for both directions.

Saph
2009-10-18, 06:20 PM
So, I've been looking around online, and I've seen a lot of peoples' opinions on 4E...many of them negative. Why? Why does no one like 4E?

You've answered your own question. Many people don't like 4e. Many people do like 4e. Hence, saying that no-one likes 4e isn't true.

Firstly, it sounds like you're noticing all the negative comments on the system and ignoring all the positive ones. This is a common phenomenon and one of the main causes of Edition Wars. People get upset that their favourite system is being criticised, they come here and make an angry post, in the process they insult other systems, fans of those systems fire back, and we get another edition war thread.

Second, you should calm down. 4e is popular, and lots of people play it. WotC is not going to discontinue the system because a few people trash it, so it really makes no sense to get worked up over a few negative comments.

Finally, games are inherently subjective. There's no real objective test for whether a game is "better" or "worse" than another one. If people don't enjoy 4e, then for them, 4e isn't a good game system. If you do enjoy 4e, then for you, 4e is a good game system. And that's pretty much all there is to say about it. But gamers love to argue.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-18, 06:22 PM
But gamers love to argue.
No we don't :smalltongue:

Chrono22
2009-10-18, 06:23 PM
Finally, games are inherently subjective. There's no real objective test for whether a game is "better" or "worse" than another one. If people don't enjoy 4e, then for them, 4e isn't a good game system. If you do enjoy 4e, then for you, 4e is a good game system. And that's pretty much all there is to say about it. But gamers love to argue.
Well, I don't think they are entirely subjective. If a game can't even abide by its own design goals, then it has failed to abide by them..
But yeah, OP, there are dozens of other 4e threads you could post in if you'd bothered looking. If you want to vent at people for having opinions, do it in one of those and spare the forum yet another 4e thread.

YvizztX23
2009-10-18, 06:23 PM
It is bad because it is D&D in name only, If it wasn't D&D, I bet people would love it.

I do not see how an extensive redesign does not make it D&D. When 3rd Edition rolled around, everyone was griping about how bad it was, and how much better 2nd Edition was. Now, they are griping about how bad 4th Edition is, and how much better 3rd Edition was.

I wonder if the same will happen with 5th Edition?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-18, 06:26 PM
I do not see how an extensive redesign does not make it D&D. When 3rd Edition rolled around, everyone was griping about how bad it was, and how much better 2nd Edition was. Now, they are griping about how bad 4th Edition is, and how much better 3rd Edition was.

I wonder if the same will happen with 5th Edition?
Yes. Yes it will.

@Chrono22 - they're entirely subjective. Or largely subjective. But they're sufficiently subjective that you can't prove or disprove the proposition "X is a Good/Bad Game."

YvizztX23
2009-10-18, 06:26 PM
You've answered your own question. Many people don't like 4e. Many people do like 4e. Hence, saying that no-one likes 4e isn't true.

Firstly, it sounds like you're noticing all the negative comments on the system and ignoring all the positive ones. This is a common phenomenon and one of the main causes of Edition Wars. People get upset that their favourite system is being criticised, they come here and make an angry post, in the process they insult other systems, fans of those systems fire back, and we get another edition war thread.

Second, you should calm down. 4e is popular, and lots of people play it. WotC is not going to discontinue the system because a few people trash it, so it really makes no sense to get worked up over a few negative comments.

Finally, games are inherently subjective. There's no real objective test for whether a game is "better" or "worse" than another one. If people don't enjoy 4e, then for them, 4e isn't a good game system. If you do enjoy 4e, then for you, 4e is a good game system. And that's pretty much all there is to say about it. But gamers love to argue.

Excellent point. Gamers are an extremely argumentative kind, both those who play RPGs and video games. Just look at Halo.

And yes, I probably am overreacting. I get incredibly obsessive when people bash something I like. Just recently, I sent some Zelda fans and extremely angry email for bashing my favorite game, Okami.

NPCMook
2009-10-18, 06:29 PM
I do not see how an extensive redesign does not make it D&D. When 3rd Edition rolled around, everyone was griping about how bad it was, and how much better 2nd Edition was. Now, they are griping about how bad 4th Edition is, and how much better 3rd Edition was.

I wonder if the same will happen with 5th Edition?

Yes, this will happen, it just depends on what the new hot game is at the time to which people will compare it too.

3e=Diablo
4e=WoW
5e=???

YvizztX23
2009-10-18, 06:32 PM
Yes, this will happen, it just depends on what the new hot game is at the time to which people will compare it too.

3e=Diablo
4e=WoW
5e=???

So, when 2E came out, what was it compared to then? Hmmm...

1989:

2e=Final Fantasy

Hee hee...

Jade_Tarem
2009-10-18, 06:33 PM
I think there are better arguments against 4E than the ones you've listed, but overall it's a matter of preference. It's easy to see what was changed, but each player brings their own interpretation to these changes.

For instance, the alteration to the base races was either a much needed spicing up and rebalancing, or a shameless pandering to the twelve year old everyman consumer bracket. The alteration to the way magic works was either a much needed rebalancing (again) or an unforgivable overzealous nerfing performed as a sop to whining martial character fanboys. The rules alterations to social interaction either provide necessary structure to integrate player interaction with social skills, or WotC's unimaginative attempt to cramp your RP style.

4E is more like World of Warcraft than any previous edition of DnD. The loss of the Vancian Casting system, the combat, class features and progressions, and expanded number of levels before hitting the "cap" are significantly (or uncomfortably) close to WoW - as is the emphasis on everyone having "spammable" powers.

Lots of emphasis is put on "streamlining." Once again, how you look at it determines if this was a good or a bad thing. A great many character creation options were cut off from 3.5 - some of it is due to the fact that there are three hundred bazillion splatbooks for 3.5, and when 4E came out there were, of course, only three. On the other hand, some things have just plain been written out of the system. People in favor of 4E will say that this ultimately leads to less time spent doing the dreary work of making characters and more time spent playing. People against it say that WotC is insulting our intelligence by implying that 3.5 was too gosh darn complex for our tiny brains to handle, or else say that it's a shameless attempt to get the "retard Halo crowd" into DnD.*

Everyone can heal themselves, starts out with more hit points to begin with, and in general has a hard time dying - the PCs are no longer everymen who rose to greatness somehow, but are simply demigods to begin with - pretty much in the style of Exalted more than WoW. This is either a departure from "subterrainian fantasy ****ing Vietnam" or WotC's attempt not to scare off the aforementioned Halo crowd, people who want to feel awesome and will ragequit without a regenerating health bar.

Who's right? Who's wrong? It's really up to you whether 4E is the latest, hottest version of an awesome game or has ruined DnD forever.

I personally dislike it due to the flavor shift - it felt less like DnD and more like some sort of cooperative final fantasy - and it did seem a touch like easy mode, like the game was saying "there there, baby, your healing surges and mountain of hit points will protect you" - but then, the DM of that game wasn't that great. Maybe a *real* and better run campaign would change my mind.

The other thing I dislike is the rate at which the splatbooks are produced. I don't know how many splatbooks 4E has now, but I think it might be getting close to the number of supplementals for 3.5, and that means that WotC is producing them a lot faster these days. This would be good if it's an indicator of the creativity of their development staff, but I kinda get the feeling that they left a *lot* out of the core books specifically to make you buy a ton of $40 supplements so you can have the same character creation options that you did before.

I mean, c'mon, they put bards in a splatbook. They haven't done that in the history of the game, as far as I know.

So anyway, there's my two cents.


*This is not to imply that everyone who plays Halo is of below-average intellect. Look, you know who I'm talking about.

Edit: Haha, 11x ninja'd.

Gamerlord
2009-10-18, 06:33 PM
Gee,I wonder what 5th edition will be like, pre-4e style or similar to 4e.

And I don't hate 4e, I just have my problems with it, It is a rather fun system.It just has very bad flaws.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-10-18, 06:33 PM
5e is just Wii Bowling.

Mystic Muse
2009-10-18, 06:33 PM
advantages. Easier to learn, streamlined skills, easy to pick up and play, not a million books to sort through and it was easier to teach to my players.
disadvantages. Combat takes too long, not a million books, Alignment is as bad as ever, classes feel pretty much the same which makes the classes too balanced, Con doesn't do anything to help your health except for at first level, you can only heal so many times per day and only once per encounter. I wouldn't even care about the per day thing if you could do more than one an encounter. It's a flippin standard action anyway!, Lay on hands should give both players a choice of A who's healing surges get expended and that should affect how much health you get, the classes needed Errata pretty quickly and they apparently didn't playtest it enough because a lot of what they claimed was a lie.

I've got more if you want it.:smalltongue:

I don't hate it. I just like 3.5 better. 4th edition is better for new games and I kind of like it better when I'm DMing.

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-18, 06:37 PM
Con doesn't do anything to help your health except for at first level

It also gives you more healing surges, if I recall, so it does actually improve your life expectancy by a good amount if you have a leader.

YvizztX23
2009-10-18, 06:40 PM
I think there are better arguments against 4E than the ones you've listed, but overall it's a matter of preference. It's easy to see what was changed, but each player brings their own interpretation to these changes.

For instance, the alteration to the base races was either a much needed spicing up and rebalancing, or a shameless pandering to the twelve year old everyman consumer bracket. The alteration to the way magic works was either a much needed rebalancing (again) or an unforgivable overzealous nerfing performed as a sop to whining martial character fanboys. The rules alterations to social interaction either provide necessary structure to integrate player interaction with social skills, or WotC's unimaginative attempt to cramp your RP style.

4E is more like World of Warcraft than any previous edition of DnD. The loss of the Vancian Casting system, the combat, class features and progressions, and expanded number of levels before hitting the "cap" are significantly (or uncomfortably) close to WoW - as is the emphasis on everyone having "spammable" powers.

Lots of emphasis is put on "streamlining." Once again, how you look at it determines if this was a good or a bad thing. A great many character creation options were cut off from 3.5 - some of it is due to the fact that there are three hundred bazillion splatbooks for 3.5, and when 4E came out there were, of course, only three. On the other hand, some things have just plain been written out of the system. People in favor of 4E will say that this ultimately leads to less time spent doing the dreary work of making characters and more time spent playing. People against it say that WotC is insulting our intelligence by implying that 3.5 was too gosh darn complex for our tiny brains to handle, or else say that it's a shameless attempt to get the "retard Halo crowd" into DnD.*

Everyone can heal themselves, starts out with more hit points to begin with, and in general has a hard time dying - the PCs are no longer everymen who rose to greatness somehow, but are simply demigods to begin with - pretty much in the style of Exalted more than WoW. This is either a departure from "subterrainian fantasy ****ing Vietnam" or WotC's attempt not to scare off the aforementioned Halo crowd, people who want to feel awesome and will ragequit without a regenerating health bar.

Who's right? Who's wrong? It's really up to you whether 4E is the latest, hottest version of an awesome game or has ruined DnD forever.

I personally dislike it due to the flavor shift - it felt less like DnD and more like some sort of cooperative final fantasy - and it did seem a touch like easy mode, like the game was saying "there there, baby, your healing surges and mountain of hit points will protect you" - but then, the DM of that game wasn't that great. Maybe a *real* and better run campaign would change my mind.

The other thing I dislike is the rate at which the splatbooks are produced. I don't know how many splatbooks 4E has now, but I think it might be getting close to the number of supplementals for 3.5, and that means that WotC is producing them a lot faster these days. This would be good if it's an indicator of the creativity of their development staff, but I kinda get the feeling that they left a *lot* out of the core books specifically to make you buy a ton of $40 supplements so you can have the same character creation options that you did before.

I mean, c'mon, they put bards in a splatbook. They haven't done that in the history of the game, as far as I know.

So anyway, there's my two cents.


*This is not to imply that everyone who plays Halo is of below-average intellect. Look, you know who I'm talking about.

Edit: Haha, 11x ninja'd.

Actually, I have no complaint against the expensive splatbooks. This is most likely because I found digital copies for them for free on the internet. If you want it, and its been out for a few months, then you'll probably find it.

Hal
2009-10-18, 06:41 PM
Actually, I have no complaint against the expensive splatbooks. This is most likely because I found digital copies for them for free on the internet. If you want it, and its been out for a few months, then you'll probably find it.

So . . . you have no problem with expense because you can just steal the books?

Fabulous.

Knaight
2009-10-18, 06:41 PM
You have to look beyond just D&D though. Its not just being compared to previous editions, its being compared to other games. I don't particularly like it, it is way too mini-heavy for me, and I don't like levels anyways. Compared to 3.5 I'm not fond of it, simply because it is harder to home brew classes and the power system is somewhat restrictive, although nowhere near as restrictive as frequently states. However, I like it much, much, more than Rolemaster, Rollmaster, Chartmaster, and Rulesmaster. And everything Palladium makes for that matter.

YvizztX23
2009-10-18, 06:43 PM
So . . . you have no problem with expense because you can just steal the books?

Fabulous.

Yeah, maybe I should have been Rogue instead of a Swordmage!

YvizztX23
2009-10-18, 06:57 PM
You have to look beyond just D&D though. Its not just being compared to previous editions, its being compared to other games. I don't particularly like it, it is way too mini-heavy for me, and I don't like levels anyways. Compared to 3.5 I'm not fond of it, simply because it is harder to home brew classes and the power system is somewhat restrictive, although nowhere near as restrictive as frequently states. However, I like it much, much, more than Rolemaster, Rollmaster, Chartmaster, and Rulesmaster. And everything Palladium makes for that matter.

True. I am making a campaign complete with new classes right now, and with all the powers each class has, it is quite time consuming to make a class.

Gametime
2009-10-18, 06:59 PM
And there is, of course, the constant annoying, and weak, argument that it is made to emulate World of Warcraft. Comparing D&D to a MMORPG (Monotonous Meaningless Obligatory Repetitive Pointless Game) is downright insulting to such a great and classic hobby. I do not see where this idea stems from, because Wizards of the Coast, as bad as people would lead you to believe they are, would not betray D&D in such a way.

So you think the best way to emphasize the awesomeness of a game you enjoy is to randomly and unnecessarily insult a game other people might enjoy.

Fabulous. It's good to know that my opinion as a D&D player is negated by the fact that I also like MMOs.

YvizztX23
2009-10-18, 07:05 PM
So you think the best way to emphasize the awesomeness of a game you enjoy is to randomly and unnecessarily insult a game other people might enjoy.

Fabulous. It's good to know that my opinion as a D&D player is negated by the fact that I also like MMOs.

Sorry. I just find MMOs a bit tiresome. I'm bashing them, not the people who play them.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-18, 07:07 PM
So, I've been looking around online, and I've seen a lot of peoples' opinions on 4E...many of them negative. Why? Why does no one like 4E?

I don't have a problem with 4e; the game I'm in has been fun, and there are some mechanics I'd like to bring back to 3.x/Pathfinder. I tend to agree, however, that it is D&D in name only. Many of the core mechanics that made the game D&D have been removed. Hit dice. Vancian spell casting. Plus, there's the movement away from "dirt level gaming"... it's hard to play a campaign of decent length without quickly outstripping regular people.

It's not that it's a bad game... I don't think you'll find too many people who will seriously argue that it is an objectively bad game, as opposed to not what they want to play. However, it's not D&D.

Gametime
2009-10-18, 07:09 PM
Sorry. I just find MMOs a bit tiresome. I'm bashing them, not the people who play them.

...And you don't see the disconnect in expressing that opinion while simultaneously having a problem with people bashing the game you play?

Eldariel
2009-10-18, 07:14 PM
Really, you can find all the arguments, the good, the bad and the trolly here with a simple search. I decided to go ahead and help you out a bit. Here's some of our harvest on the pointless 4e vs. 3e debates that just can't seem to be kept civil even though there's no reason not to be civil about it (this thread seems surprisingly calm thus far):
4E? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127412)
how is 3.5 actually better than 4e? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127859)
Why do you like DnD 3.5? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12747) (obviously not about 4e inherently, but it was brought up as always for no reason whatsoever)
The best part of 4e for you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126028) (again, nothing about 3e but it got brought up anyways)
3.5 vs 4e (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125238)
[3.5 and 4e] Two Editions is Hard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122937)
Is 3.5 Obsolete? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119543) (definitely wasn't meant for edition wars...heh)


So, after you're done reading all those threads from post 1 to the end, if you still feel you have something substantial to add that hasn't been bought up in any of those threads, do a search for some more and if you still don't find your point mentioned anywhere, feel free to add to it.

Otherwise, I'm pretty confident all those will answer all your questions about peoples' opinions, feelings and the arguments for both sides in this particular discussion. Happy reading.

The Glyphstone
2009-10-18, 07:17 PM
Strawberry!

sofawall
2009-10-18, 07:18 PM
Sorry. I just find MMOs a bit tiresome. I'm bashing them, not the people who play them.

I dislike both 4e and Okami. I mean, who would play either of those games? They're horrible! Why would you even think either of those are worth playing?

And oh man, WoW, what a great game. You know what's even better? Runescape! Oh man, you can just do the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over! So much fun!

But yeah your games suck. Anyone who plays them is wrong.

No offense, though.

The Demented One
2009-10-18, 07:25 PM
It works very well for what it's meant to work well for, which is tactical combat that emphasizes cooperation and positioning, with general but robust mechanics for non-combat actions. That's just not what I'm interested in.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-18, 07:36 PM
It works very well for what it's meant to work well for, which is tactical combat that emphasizes cooperation and positioning, with general but robust mechanics for non-combat actions. That's just not what I'm interested in.

It works plenty well for other things, depending on your DM's style and taste obviously. For example, tonight we spent an entire session travelling, interacting with people, avoiding pursuit, mountaineering and attempting to destroy a mountain pass to halt the progress of a largely Cavalry based army.

The only time my character even drew his weapon was to threaten our warlock's Familiar for it's smart mouth, let alone do an attack roll or break out initiative.

sofawall
2009-10-18, 07:43 PM
The thing is, in 3.5, you would have skills or spells or some such thing that seems almost tailor made for the situation. For many out-of-combat situations in 4e, you need to play it by ear.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-18, 07:51 PM
Generally, though, sofa, for many character concepts it quickly becomes could have had skills that are explicitly required for many or various out of combat situations. (Which usually can be completely negated by said spells.)

I can't recall the amount of times i've had characters stumped by a moderately paced stream on account of they just couldn't afford to be able to jump, climb, AND swim whilst still being capable of doing anything else... And heaven help them if they had to ride there!

Most individual skills from 3.5 survive, at least as a facet of a parent skill.

On the other hand, both 1st and 2nd edition (for the most part) lacked skills altogether, and somehow roleplaying was done.

A large piece of the schism seems, to me, to be about the difference between people who feel the need for rigid structure and those who are perhaps less structure-dependant.

Falchion
2009-10-18, 08:05 PM
Hey, yo! This is Falchion Arcae, the warforged co-creator of Earthfell. Aright, let me just ask this first: is there any easy, free way to put one of my pictures on the web so I can use it as my avatar? I made a REALLY cool picture.

So I'm going to be creating a big part of the maps for Earthfell, and I hope to be involved with the classes/races as well.

I honestly think it's pretty funny that there's such a humongous debate over whether 4e is a masterpiece or a disgrace. It's just another edition. If you like 3.5 better, stick with it. I like 4e because it's a lot more streamlined and easier to learn than 3.5. Also, the races and classes are way more balanced.

Chrono22
2009-10-18, 08:08 PM
Posted for posterity:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/3/20/

sofawall
2009-10-18, 08:14 PM
Hey, yo! This is Falchion Arcae, the warforged co-creator of Earthfell. Aright, let me just ask this first: is there any easy, free way to put one of my pictures on the web so I can use it as my avatar? I made a REALLY cool picture.

So I'm going to be creating a big part of the maps for Earthfell, and I hope to be involved with the classes/races as well.

Eh?



I honestly think it's pretty funny that there's such a humongous debate over whether 4e is a masterpiece or a disgrace. It's just another edition. If you like 3.5 better, stick with it. I like 4e because it's a lot more streamlined and easier to learn than 3.5. Also, the races and classes are way more balanced.

Classes: Ranger (went infinite before 4e was even released)
Races: Human (I hear its very rarely worth using)

Falchion
2009-10-18, 08:21 PM
I think we should REALLY stop talking about 4e vs. 3.5e. I'm pretty sure the point of this thread was to talk about homemade D&D campaigns. I mean, no offense, but arguing about it doesn't make anybody more productive.

Knaight
2009-10-18, 08:21 PM
Generally, though, sofa, for many character concepts it quickly becomes could have had skills that are explicitly required for many or various out of combat situations. (Which usually can be completely negated by said spells.)

I can't recall the amount of times i've had characters stumped by a moderately paced stream on account of they just couldn't afford to be able to jump, climb, AND swim whilst still being capable of doing anything else... And heaven help them if they had to ride there!

Most individual skills from 3.5 survive, at least as a facet of a parent skill.
Yes, but there are non 3.5 games that handle that bit a lot better. Such as nearly every skill based game. As for 3.5, I think that every class could use triple the skill points and it might be closer. This being after you remove the whole 2 points as a base skill point matter.

Eldariel
2009-10-18, 08:23 PM
I think we should REALLY stop talking about 4e vs. 3.5e. I'm pretty sure the point of this thread was to talk about homemade D&D campaigns. I mean, no offense, but arguing about it doesn't make anybody more productive.

Uhm, this was the opening post:

So, I've been looking around online, and I've seen a lot of peoples' opinions on 4E...many of them negative. Why? Why does no one like 4E?

This being my first experience with D&D, I went into it with no prejudice because it was new, or because they got rid of some feature, or because I had just gotten the 3.5 rules and did not want another edition.

I've looked at the old rules. I, in fact, have two 2nd Edition AD&D books that I found for $3.50 each at a library book sale. I skimmed through them. BUT I CANNOT FIGURE OUT WHY PEOPLE HAVE ISSUES WITH 4E!!!

I do not see why there is anything wrong with having the classes refined and balanced, the races changed a bit, combat made with strategy rather than immersion in mind. And there is, of course, the constant annoying, and weak, argument that it is made to emulate World of Warcraft. Comparing D&D to a MMORPG (Monotonous Meaningless Obligatory Repetitive Pointless Game) is downright insulting to such a great and classic hobby. I do not see where this idea stems from, because Wizards of the Coast, as bad as people would lead you to believe they are, would not betray D&D in such a way. They put much time and money into versions 3, 3.5, and 4.

The claim that 4E supposedly is more restrictive to roleplaying is not entirely true. That aspect is based off of the creativity of the players and especially the DM, not the rules.

My two complaints against 4E is as follows: They mucked up the alignments for some reason, and the official miniatures, which are highly necessary for combat, suck badly :smallfurious:. Fortunately, this is easy to fix. There's no reason not to use the old alignments, and you can use many things other than the official miniatures for combat. My friend and I have discovered that Lego minifigures work very well.

So, over all, I enjoy 4E, both as a DM and a Player (I do both!). The rules are refined and streamlined, and there is no reason, especially with all of the books filled with more character races, classes, and options, that anyone should feel left out.



What do you think?
Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Jade_Tarem
2009-10-18, 08:25 PM
I think we should REALLY stop talking about 4e vs. 3.5e.

Assuming that you're not trolling, 4E is what the thread is about. The obvious comparison is to the previous edition. If you like, we could compare it to other things. If you don't want to discuss 4E, then just spend your time in other threads.


I'm pretty sure the point of this thread was to talk about homemade D&D campaigns.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of some other thread.


I mean, no offense, but arguing about it doesn't make anybody more productive.

People rarely visit forums about tabletop gaming to be more productive.

Falchion
2009-10-18, 08:29 PM
I dislike both 4e and Okami. I mean, who would play either of those games? They're horrible! Why would you even think either of those are worth playing?

And oh man, WoW, what a great game. You know what's even better? Runescape! Oh man, you can just do the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over! So much fun!

But yeah your games suck. Anyone who plays them is wrong.

No offense, though.

Ummm... really?? I imagine you're being sarcastic (Oh man, you can just do the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over! So much fun!), but reply if you aren't.

sofawall
2009-10-18, 08:33 PM
Man, I love when people aren't sure of sarcasm or not... :P

Falchion
2009-10-18, 08:33 PM
Uhm, this was the opening post:

Are you sure you're in the right thread?
Yeah, OK, but still...

Alright, you know what, I'll bite. Let's butt heads over this vaguely irrelevant issue.:smallamused:

Falchion
2009-10-18, 08:49 PM
So here's my epic pros and cons list of 4e.

Pros

Balances classes
Balances races
Streamlines rules
Makes combat more tactical (if you don't like that you have to buy minis to play, don't worry about it, you can use anything. Legos work especially well)
4e books are, quite frankly, easier on the eyes
More options than ever (Wizards has already published a LOT of books that give you extra feats, powers, weapons and destinies)
Contrary to popular belief, 4e does not subtract from the roleplaying in any way. AT ALL. I don't know where people are getting this notion.

Cons

Beast master rangers are still a cut above some classes (it's like having a whole other character in your party)
4e messes with the alignment system (but this is hardly a con, because you can just use the old one instead)
I've had my cursor hovering on this spot for, like, three minutes trying to think of another con

So, in reflection, you shouldn't really diss 4e that much. One thing you can always try is tweaking the rules. Bring in elements from 3.5 to the overall superior interface of 4e.

If anyone has anything to add to the pros or cons, I'd be happy to hear it, but cite specific examples (no saying "con: it sucks").

Falchion
2009-10-18, 08:54 PM
People rarely visit forums about tabletop gaming to be more productive.

LO freaking L

So true...:thog:

Knaight
2009-10-18, 08:57 PM
Con: Now it really requires miniatures.
Con: More restrictive class system, no multiclassing.
Con: Combat still takes an eternity.
Con: The book covers aren't as cool.
Con: The powers system is more restrictive.
Con: It is still a level based game.:smalltongue:
Con: The skill list is too narrow, and the advancement method too forced. Of course, this can be fixed by also adding in substandard skills.
Con: Still not granular enough, there is unnecessary detail in spots.
Con: Classes take way, way too long to homebrew.
Con: It still has hit points (although healing surges simulate the whole matter of instant fatigue rather nicely with it.):smalltongue:

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-18, 08:59 PM
Con: It is still a level based game.:smalltongue:

Hey, my favorite game is level-based!

Knaight
2009-10-18, 09:03 PM
Hence the small tongue. I dislike them, but really, taking that away is just asking for the "It isn't D&D anymore argument." way beyond what it currently has.

Gralamin
2009-10-18, 09:10 PM
Con: Now it really requires miniatures.
I find a lot of games do, but thats probably because I like to know my options in tactical situations :smalltongue:

Con: More restrictive class system, no multiclassing.
Quite False. Limited Multiclassing would be true though. More Restrictive though? Not so sure on that...

Con: Combat still takes an eternity.
True

Con: The book covers aren't as cool.
Completely Subjective, and thus not a good Con :smalltongue:

Con: The powers system is more restrictive.
Hopefully PHB3 and further books will make this less and less true.

Con: It is still a level based game.:smalltongue:
Well, yes. But everything has a con based on what type of game it is :smallamused:

Con: The skill list is too narrow, and the advancement method too forced. Of course, this can be fixed by also adding in substandard skills.
The other skills are either subsumed or considered unneeded. Lucky, its really simple to fix this if you need to, not that doesn't make it a potential con in the system to some people.

Con: Still not granular enough, there is unnecessary detail in spots.
How granular do you expect a rules heavy system to be? :smalltongue:

Con: Classes take way, way too long to homebrew.
This is a definite Con.

NPCMook
2009-10-18, 09:17 PM
Shouldn't a class take long to homebrew, unless you are just trying to make a cheesy homebrew class anyway

Knaight
2009-10-18, 09:35 PM
No, not necessarily. Sure, some time put into it would be nice, just for thought, but you should be able to homebrew a class in 15-30 minutes if you are even moderately acquainted with the system, and 10-20 minutes if you know it well.

valadil
2009-10-18, 09:54 PM
I enjoy 4e quite a bit. I also enjoy 3.5 and won't be selling off my books any time soon. I'm glad the new edition is different enough that it feels like a whole new game instead of a minor, but expensive upgrade.

Many of 4e's design decisions favored the system as a game rather than a simulation. Diagonal movement is seriously inaccurate, but it's a hell of a lot easier to count. Death is practically a status effect - you're out of the combat and your team loses some gold, but you'll be back and playing in the same session. Some players would rather have an accurate model of the world. Those players aren't likely to enjoy 4e.

Roland St. Jude
2009-10-18, 10:06 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: As the OP notes, this ground has been tread repeatedly. A google search or search of any gaming forum will yield plenty of information without re-treading it here in the usual inflammatory manner. Already in this thread there are accusations of trolling, discussion of illegal downloads, and other problems. Thread locked.