4e is awesome

[HeirToPendragon]

So I was reading through some of the posts and I really don't know what is with all the hate going on here for 4e.

Besides the fact that you guys could not possibly have played it that much to create a full assessment, you're missing things entirely.

Feats are boring and uneventful. Well guess what, what Feats were in 3.5 are now Powers in 4e. If you can't see that, you're blind to the concept. In 3.5 your feats gave you the ability to do special things but made you plan out those things at the very beginning. In 4e your feats just enhance your already insane powers.

Character creation has taken a complete turn. Yes the puzzle piece system has been taken away, but that doesn't mean there isn't customization. My first character is currently on the path of being a front line Warlock/Paladin wearing scale mail and using a rapier. I have an Archer Ranger that puts my 3.5 archer to shame. You were hindered in 3.5 for multiclassing too much and you're still hindered here but in a different way (that way being that instead of losing powers and abilities for multiclassing, all you're really losing are feats, and well read above).

Oh boo hoo, your 4e Fighter is gonna be sucky at TWF. Well then go RANGER. He's going to be doing TWF and he's going to do it BETTER than your 3.5 Fighter did after you took 8 some feats to get rid of the penalties. Your build that you like is there, you just have to look for it. That warlock I have may as well be a swashbuckler/wizard because I can't find any spectacular feats for him so when I'm done he'll be as sneaky and underhanded as a rogue who stabs people with a CHA enhanced rapier or blasts them with spells.

The rules in 4e are clean, fixed, and have been changed to the point that the game isn't penalizing people anymore. The entire read through I did of the PHB I kept feeling like WotC took every complaint we had and fixed them. My Wizard doesn't run out of spells, my Fighter isn't worthless outside combat, Movement has become what it always should have been, Grappling is no longer wordy and confusing at all, AoO now has only a minor bit of vagueness as opposed to the 25 pages of explanation it took up in Rules Compendium, etc.

You guys have to understand that you are coming from a system that made it really difficult to do pretty much anything so you had to spend hours designing every little aspect of a character so that it would turn out awesome. Sure your dexterous rogue could do some insane things, but you were so bogged down by rules that were you ever to try the stuff you had to spend probably 20 some minutes matching the rules and making rolls. 4e doesn't care and actually wants you to be able to do amazing things.

I don't really see what all the complaining is about. I spent 3 hours last night designing that Archer and while sure if I were ever to make an archer again he'd probably do the same things, the fact is, I won't ever be starting in the same town doing the same quests over and over again. Sure he'll have the same powers (mostly, I might make him a Rogue thrower instead), but combat is only so small of a thing in D&D. It's not like I'm building the same character again and then grinding the same quests that I already did. If you feel like this is what you'll be doing than you have a piss poor DM.

In 3.5 you could have hundreds of different ways to build an archer, but you had to pray that you did it right because if you didn't, well sucks to your character, here's hoping you die and can make a new one. 4e doesn't do that, it says "Oh, you want to build an archer? Well I've got about 3 or 4 ways you can do it and as long as you put forth just a tiny thought, it's always going to be a great character".

Skills work so much better in 4e too. There is no more picking and choosing of where to put every single point. You get better at all things as you gain levels and things that should have been merged years ago finally are. I make ONE skill check to hear or see something, I make ONE check for Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft, and I make ONE skill check for all those fun little rogue tricks.

Sure there are things about 3.5 I'm going to miss doing. I LIKED spending 8 hours planning out a character to level 20, even if he never got there. But what I didn't like was being bogged down by every god forsaken rule out there. Why don't you people actually play a couple more games before bitching about it. It's been out for 3 days and already you blast it because, oh god, it's a change.


I think the only thing I dislike about 4e right now is that, once again, WotC did not put this book together all that great. When are they gonna learn that the rules of the game should be front and center while the customization should come after you've read all the rules?

[Xyk]

You have some good points.


Besides the fact that you guys could not possibly have played it that much to create a full assessment, you're missing things entirely.

This bugged me. You're doing the same thing.

I actually agree with most of what you said, and look forward to playing a much simpler D&D.

[Cormac]

I agree with your assessments. I havent played yet, but reading through the handbook, everything looks exciting. I do think that min/maxers will have a little less fun, but let's face it, all of that fun was mostly outside of the game, once you got in the game you would just do the same things over and over. I know from experience. Plus, i think that the simplicity of character creation puts more emphasis on actual game play and role playing. And I do really think that even if i am not able to create a cleric archer who destroy everything in sight (as per 3.0), I will actually have more fun...

My biggest piss-off is that druid's arent present. I love druids.

[Tough_Tonka]

You have some good points.



This bugged me. You're doing the same thing.

I actually agree with most of what you said, and look forward to playing a much simpler D&D.

He could have been a play tester. So far I've really enjoyed the game as a player and as a DM. As for TWF some people might not want to play the warrior of the wilderness arch-type, but them again a lot of the classes ties to the wilderness in this addition are just fluff.

[HeirToPendragon]

My biggest piss-off is that druid's arent present. I love druids.

They're coming soon. See the side note on page 54 of PHB

[ghost_warlock]

Maybe one of the things people don't like about 4e is that there's already 15-odd theads about it that basically read the same. There really isn't any need to start an new thread when everything you have to say, you could easily have said in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82516) already devoted to 4e thoughts and opinions.

[Matthew]

Maybe one of the things people don't like about 4e is that there's already 15-odd theads about it that basically read the same. There really isn't any need to start an new thread when everything you have to say, you could easily have said in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82516) already devoted to 4e thoughts and opinions.

I have to agree with this. Nice post and all, but another 4e thread...

[TempusCCK]

So, let me get this straight, you like the fact that the rules are simpler... and you like the fact that you can make a powerful character without any thought.

You like the fact that all the characters are powerful no matter what they do. You seem to like alot of power in your games. Some people, mind you, like to play D&D for the social and roleplaying experience... not just to have the most powerful character(s). And those people have some issues with 4e and it's predominence of simplified rules and balance over internal consistency.

You missed most of what 4e's detractors are saying. You just spent a wall of text plugging the obvious 4e selling points right from WotC's mouth while avoiding many peoples issues altogether. Are they paying you to do this? I don't understand why you post all this repetitive stuff and miss the detractors issues altogether.

[Lycan 01]

Can I just say something? To everyone? *shrug*


The best thing about DnD is...

You can tweak it.


If you don't like something about the game, just tweak it. That's always been an important part of DnD, from what I've gathered. Minor rule changes, system modifications, or entire re-dos of certain aspects of the game. The same applies to 4e, in theory. If you don't like something, just fix it... If you find the feats/powers/whatever to be overpowered, just modify or restrict them. Heck, if you want, just remove them entirely...


I know my opinion doesn't matter for much, and I don't have much room to talk as I'm a DnD novice. But still... why complain about something that is easy to fix?


(Don't kill me... :smalleek:)

[Saph]

So I was reading through some of the posts and I really don't know what is with all the hate going on here for 4e.

Besides the fact that you guys could not possibly have played it that much to create a full assessment, you're missing things entirely.

Why don't you people actually play a couple more games before bitching about it. It's been out for 3 days and already you blast it because, oh god, it's a change.

Or perhaps because 4e isn't perfect and we're pointing out it's limitations?

Seriously, what is it about 4e that makes people defend it so fanatically? I can understand why people can irrationally dislike 4e - it's a change and a disruption. But I don't understand why a vocal minority on this board treat criticism of 4e as though you've just insulted their family, their religion, and their political party all at once.

- Saph

[HeirToPendragon]

Some people, mind you, like to play D&D for the social and roleplaying experience...


Why do people keep arguing that they took this out?

It's there, in full. Sure WotC took out a lot of fluff, and my DM for this past week has considered that one of the best selling points. He doesn't have to worry about all sorts of rules and flavor problems that prevent his story from doing what he wants. He considers minions to be the best thing to happen to what used to be his chore of writing encounters so now he focuses mainly on the story. The exact conversation from last night was:

man people's complaints against 4e are mind boggling
'theres no flavor text given'
so you're...encouraged to make your own?
oh god the entire book sets are competlely focused on combat and combat related stuff
its almost like they want me to make up a story and people and stuff

I haven't read the MM or DMs guide yet because Amazon has yet to deliver ANY of my books and I'd rather wait for the book than read through those on .pdf, but from what I skimmed it makes it look like a lot of the encounter work is gone, so if the social aspect and roleplaying is no longer part of your session, well then you need to get a new DM.

[HeirToPendragon]

Seriously, what is it about 4e that makes people defend it so fanatically? I can understand why people can irrationally dislike 4e - it's a change and a disruption. But I don't understand why a vocal minority on this board treat criticism of 4e as though you've just insulted their family, their religion, and their political party all at once.


I wouldn't mind so much, nor would I have registered for that rant above, had some of the critisims I've been reading not been so whiny and unfulfilling. I mean sure there are problems, there will always be problems in table top RPGs, especially when you openly tell people to go lacks on the rules. But the only problems we've had this entire week is when something was not defined, which was quickly solved when we all realized that the DM was the one in control and he just made a decision.

[FoE]

Seriously, what is it about 4e that makes people defend it so fanatically? I can understand why people can irrationally dislike 4e - it's a change and a disruption. But I don't understand why a vocal minority on this board treat criticism of 4e as though you've just insulted their family, their religion, and their political party all at once.

I think it's because the most vocal critics of 4E dismiss the whole thing altogether as being worthless because they don't like one aspect of it. And since many of its supporters have tried it and like the changes made, it feels like a personal slight.

[Spiryt]

I just realised how... castrated abilities and skills are.

Me not like. Intelligence never was especially usegul for fighters in 3.5, but now...

[Illiterate Scribe]

So I was reading through some of the posts and I really don't know what is with all the hate going on here for 4e.

Well I do. And if you'd looked through the ~25 threads on the subject in the last 3 weeks, you would too.


Besides the fact that you guys could not possibly have played it that much to create a full assessment, you're missing things entirely.


Well, we've played it, and, if things that jump out at us as bad appear even now, then what should we make of it? Also, by saying '4e is awesome' after such a little time, you're making a fairly snappish judgment yourself.


Feats are boring and uneventful. Well guess what, what Feats were in 3.5 are now Powers in 4e. If you can't see that, you're blind to the concept. In 3.5 your feats gave you the ability to do special things but made you plan out those things at the very beginning. In 4e your feats just enhance your already insane powers.

Insane powers?

Are you reading the same PHB as me?

Also, in 3.5, feats tended to be able to modify what you could do, in interesting ways: metamagic, 'metafighting' (power attack, expertise, whirlwind attack). That doesn't really exist any more.


Character creation has taken a complete turn. Yes the puzzle piece system has been taken away, but that doesn't mean there isn't customization. My first character is currently on the path of being a front line Warlock/Paladin wearing scale mail and using a rapier. I have an Archer Ranger that puts my 3.5 archer to shame. You were hindered in 3.5 for multiclassing too much and you're still hindered here but in a different way (that way being that instead of losing powers and abilities for multiclassing, all you're really losing are feats, and well read above).

There may be customisation, but it all ends up doing the same thing: X dice worth of damage + an ability modifier + (maybe) a minor effect.


Oh boo hoo, your 4e Fighter is gonna be sucky at TWF. Well then go RANGER. He's going to be doing TWF and he's going to do it BETTER than your 3.5 Fighter did after you took 8 some feats to get rid of the penalties. Your build that you like is there, you just have to look for it. That warlock I have may as well be a swashbuckler/wizard because I can't find any spectacular feats for him so when I'm done he'll be as sneaky and underhanded as a rogue who stabs people with a CHA enhanced rapier or blasts them with spells.


Those are our objections? I wasn't aware.


The rules in 4e are clean, fixed, and have been changed to the point that the game isn't penalizing people anymore.

Yes. They have made a nice boardgame, haven't they.


The entire read through I did of the PHB I kept feeling like WotC took every complaint we had and fixed them.

The fact that they brought in some more doesn't matter to you?

You guys have to understand that you are coming from a system that made it really difficult to do pretty much anything so you had to spend hours designing every little aspect of a character so that it would turn out awesome. Sure your dexterous rogue could do some insane things, but you were so bogged down by rules that were you ever to try the stuff you had to spend probably 20 some minutes matching the rules and making rolls. 4e doesn't care and actually wants you to be able to do amazing things.


Like, uh, some damage! Or an exciting skill challenge!

:smallsigh:


I don't really see what all the complaining is about. I spent 3 hours last night designing that Archer and while sure if I were ever to make an archer again he'd probably do the same things, the fact is, I won't ever be starting in the same town doing the same quests over and over again. Sure he'll have the same powers (mostly, I might make him a Rogue thrower instead), but combat is only so small of a thing in D&D.

Which explains why they cut out a whole lot of the non-combat rules, and based the default on a 'squares' system.


In 3.5 you could have hundreds of different ways to build an archer, but you had to pray that you did it right because if you didn't, well sucks to your character, here's hoping you die and can make a new one. 4e doesn't do that, it says "Oh, you want to build an archer? Well I've got about 3 or 4 ways you can do it and as long as you put forth just a tiny thought, it's always going to be a great character".


Not really. The rogue list, for example, has a whole lot of trap powers that, if you're not a brawny rogue, you really shouldn't take.


Skills work so much better in 4e too. There is no more picking and choosing of where to put every single point.

So noone specialises any more? What's the point in having, say, sages then, if everyone of a high level knows a fair amount about everything. Specialisation's a bedrock of society.


Sure there are things about 3.5 I'm going to miss doing. I LIKED spending 8 hours planning out a character to level 20, even if he never got there. But what I didn't like was being bogged down by every god forsaken rule out there. Why don't you people actually play a couple more games before bitching about it. It's been out for 3 days and already you blast it because, oh god, it's a change.

Why don't you play a few more games before you like it? Oh right, because we can see things that we like or dislike from early on. Also, nice the way you're reading our minds and knowing why we object to things better than we do.


I think the only thing I dislike about 4e right now is that, once again, WotC did not put this book together all that great. When are they gonna learn that the rules of the game should be front and center while the customization should come after you've read all the rules?

A little more of that customisation you talk about would be nice. I'd rather play a game a bit more interesting than 'Chess + Snakes and Ladders Deluxe'.


man people's complaints against 4e are mind boggling
'theres no flavor text given'
so you're...encouraged to make your own?
oh god the entire book sets are competlely focused on combat and combat related stuff
its almost like they want me to make up a story and people and stuff


lol @ straw man presentation of people's objections.

[Magnvo]

Or perhaps because 4e isn't perfect and we're pointing out it's limitations?

Seriously, what is it about 4e that makes people defend it so fanatically? I can understand why people can irrationally dislike 4e - it's a change and a disruption. But I don't understand why a vocal minority on this board treat criticism of 4e as though you've just insulted their family, their religion, and their political party all at once.

- Saph

You wonder why people can defend it so fanatically yet it is perfectly logical to you why people fanatically attack it. I wonder if I am the only one who sees a flaw in this logic.

[NorseItalian]

I concur with the OP, but people have the right to dislike it. Some people still play 2e because they didn't like 3e. And that's alright as well.The fact is, they're very different versions of the same game, and no one is obligated to like or dislike any of them. I enjoy 4e, but I respect other people's rights to not like it.

[TempusCCK]

Why do people keep arguing that they took this out?

It's there, in full. Sure WotC took out a lot of fluff, and my DM for this past week has considered that one of the best selling points. He doesn't have to worry about all sorts of rules and flavor problems that prevent his story from doing what he wants. He considers minions to be the best thing to happen to what used to be his chore of writing encounters so now he focuses mainly on the story. The exact conversation from last night was:

man people's complaints against 4e are mind boggling
'theres no flavor text given'
so you're...encouraged to make your own?
oh god the entire book sets are competlely focused on combat and combat related stuff
its almost like they want me to make up a story and people and stuff

I haven't read the MM or DMs guide yet because Amazon has yet to deliver ANY of my books and I'd rather wait for the book than read through those on .pdf, but from what I skimmed it makes it look like a lot of the encounter work is gone, so if the social aspect and roleplaying is no longer part of your session, well then you need to get a new DM.


Umm, did I argue that that was an issue for me? Don't recall. I merely stated that as to point out that not everyone is concerned with power, but rather they are more concerned with a story that makes sense within the context provided, and there are many 4e rules that conflict with that. Again, top marks for avoiding the real issue, congrats.

[Illiterate Scribe]

I concur with the OP, but people have the right to dislike it. Some people still play 2e because they didn't like 3e. And that's alright as well.The fact is, they're very different versions of the same game, and no one is obligated to like or dislike any of them. I enjoy 4e, but I respect other people's rights to not like it.

If our right to dislike it was ever under question, then I would be very worried indeed. What next, White Wolf/WotC pitched battles between rival gangs? Palladium thought police?

[HeirToPendragon]

Illiterate I'm so glad you were able to pick and choose from my argument the sentences that you could berate with a witty jab but never actually made any counter arguments against the rant in whole.

Good Job.

[Saph]

You wonder why people can defend it so fanatically yet it is perfectly logical to you why people fanatically attack it. I wonder if I am the only one who sees a flaw in this logic.

*sigh*

I started to type out a clarification in response to this, then considered who'd be reading it and realised there wasn't much point.

Apologies for the thread derailment. You may now resume your regularly scheduled flaming.

- Saph

[Illiterate Scribe]

Illiterate I'm so glad you were able to pick and choose from my argument the sentences that you could berate with a witty jab but never actually made any counter arguments against the rant in whole.

Good Job.

Well I'm really glad that you're busy tossing aside the whole thing, without any answer to any of the objections raised.

Actually, take that back. Taking people in bad faith is nasty, mean, and shouldn't be done ...

Oh wait.

[chiasaur11]

If our right to dislike it was ever under question, then I would be very worried indeed. What next, White Wolf/WotC pitched battles between rival gangs? Palladium thought police?

I'm thinking Friend Computer and Communism. In that order.

[ghost_warlock]

I'm thinking Friend Computer and Communism. In that order.

Only a commie would talk like that about Our Friend, the Computer.

*aims and fires*

[Skyserpent]

If our right to dislike it was ever under question, then I would be very worried indeed. What next, White Wolf/WotC pitched battles between rival gangs? Palladium thought police?

I'd watch that movie...

Anyway, yeah you're allowed to dislike it, but I think it may get a little easier to swallow if people criticizing 4e would at least give it credit for what it does well... I mean, people do, but often it comes off in a condescending way...

I dunno, I mean, you're allowed to dislike the system as a whole too, but I'd rather you didn't actively mock it... Of course this is wishful thinking on my part...

[Myatar_Panwar]

Why is it that we defend 4E with such devotion and anger? I'm not entirely sure, I mean, it is only a game. It shouldn't be drawing such emotional reactions should it? Either way, I can't help but get upset when I hear such bashings.

It is a different game, and I suppose that people who sincerely hate the game (quite a few, I'm pretty surprised at that) will just play 3.5, or some earlier version.

Ok, now I should first state that I have not yet played a game of 4E, I just got the books yesterday. Here is what I like about both systems (my opinion):

3E
Pros -Great customization. Characters are totally affected by the feat and skill choices. Can make or break your character.
-Huge spell list for casters. Casters have even greater customization, and can do near limitless things with their spells, makes you feel powerful.
-Tons of splatbooks released to make your character better.

Cons -Unbalanced. Casters are far more powerful than the melee, unless your going ToB (well, still weaker, but not as bad) but then you may as well go 4E.
-Sure, you have tons of possibilities. But if your someone who is wholeheartedly devoted to customization, then you will probably only use a couple of specific feat trees. Lots of customization, but if you want to keep up, then only a couple of builds for your choice.
-Spotlight. Related to being unbalanced, casters in 3E usually hog the spotlight, even if they don't mean to. ("Oh, need to cross the bridge? Fly. Need to kill those monsters? Disintegrate. Need to sneak past those guards? Silence + Invisibility. Why do other classes even exist when they could be doing all this stuff with no check required (and with better results)?)

4E (from what I can gather)
Pros -Very balanced. No class specifically outshines another in an overall sense like the casters in 3E.
-Roles defined. All classes fall under a category: Striker, Defender, Leader, and Controller. And each class specified does its job very well, and plays (at least it looks that way to me, haven't played yet) differently. The strikers do tons of damage (the warlock with ranged spells, the rogue and ranger with shifting movements and speed), the defenders protect their allies and distract their enemies (both the fighter and paladin have ways to mark their enemies to try and prevent them from attacking allies. As far as I can tell, fighters also excel at pushing enemies around (sliding), while the paladin dips into buffs and debuffs), the Leaders are great at buffing and helping allies in general (the cleric heals and buffs allies with his strikes and spells, while the warlord shifts allies around while buffing their melee prowis), and the controller (hopefully there will be more in the future) uses abilities that effect multiple enemies at once. Either with damage or with constraining abilities to control the battlefield (the wizard achieves this with arcane spells).
-Easier encounter system. Pre-determined XP and encounter rules help speed up the creation process.
-Monster abilities. Many creatures in the MM have interesting abilities which they can deploy that effect combat tremendously. No longer limited to "just swinging/ biting/ clawing". All of which no longer require time away from the game to look up all of their spells or something.
-Exciting power system.

Cons -Feats are no longer as important as in 4E (I don't really see this as a flaw in a different game, but it seems like many people feel otherwise)
-Feels like a MMO (also, I can see this too, but I see nothing wrong with it. Remember folks, this is just a game, we don't play it for theoretical choices. We play it cause its fun. Theres a reason WoW recently reached 10 Million subscribers).
-Less customization. Sure, I can agree with this.
-New edition makes those old (and expensive!) books from 3E obsolete.

I'm sure I missed some key points in both the pro and anti 4E crusades, but I hope I got the bulk of it. As I stated earlier, I do also feel the whole WoW thing with 4E. But please, PLEASE, tell me why that is such a bad thing? An MMO is a game, and D&D is a game. But now, theres a D&D system with MMO like classes and customization, but in an endless world of imagination? Why is this such a bad thing? Do people feel that they are being insulted having the two genres mix up a little bit? Guy 1: "Ok, so now you have a tabletop game with insanely balanced classes, endless adventures and worlds to explore, and great roleplaying to boot. How does that sound?" Guy 2:"Awesome, sign me up please." Guy 1: "Oh yeah, there are also some cool powers and stuff for each class which tactically enhances combat, and also small feat type things to customize your character as you go. Kind of like Talents in World of Warcraft." Guy 2: "World of Warcraft? What the hell are you trying to do here? WoW is a computer game for stoner's and low-lifes, get out of here. I don't need your fun gameplay and interactive story if it at all relates to a game like that, no matter how much entertainment it can provide me." I just don't get how this is a bad thing... or why people seem to constantly refer to MMO's as such a horrible thing that shoulden't touch social table-top games like D&D.

As I see it, 4E gives D&D better tactical gameplay. It doesn't enhance roleplaying as far as I have found, but it also doesn't hinder it. I've also heard someone in real life, in a game store, say that they won't be playing 4E because its "too mainstream". :smallconfused: This probably relates to the whole MMO thing (its popular so I don't want anything to do with it). Just because more people will be playing it you don't want to participate? This only contributes to the negative stereotype that D&D players are basement dwelling loners who has been living with his parents for 40 years and can't get a girlfriend.

Theres my opinion, proceed to rip it to shreds. :smallsmile:

Edit: Oh yeah, forgot to ask. In a few days I'm going to get both of my D&D groups together and we are going to give 4E a taste. Unfortunately, I think I am currently the only one in possession of the books, and don't want to spend the whole session passing the book around making characters, so I've been fleshing them out myself. But I would really rather not have to copy all of the powers onto the sheets. Is there somewhere on the internets with those "power cards" I heard about awhile ago? Or something similar?

Thanks in advance.

[FoE]

you're allowed to dislike it, but I think it may get a little easier to swallow if people criticizing 4e would at least give it credit for what it does well...

That's my feeling as well. The harshest critics of 4E suggest that, because they don't like one aspect of the system, the whole thing sucks and is completely worthless. I think the people doing this the loudest are the ones who are angry their wizards aren't as incredibly powerful as they were.

[Morty]

That's my feeling as well. The harshest critics of 4E suggest that, because they don't like one aspect of the system, the whole thing sucks and is completely worthless. I think the people doing this the loudest are the ones who are angry their wizards aren't as incredibly powerful as they were.

I just love how 4ed fans berate 4ed anti-fans for lack of objectivism, blind hatred, and all that jazz, and then proceed to post something like "y'all just don't want your wizards to be balanced" or "y'all hate the whole system because of one single thing". And then they martyrize themselves by saying how awful they feel surrounded by "4ed hate" Double standards are a beautiful thing.
Whew, that was harsh. But most of my dislike for 4ed comes actually from its "fans" who can't stand their beloved system being disliked or criticized and feel they need to dismiss everyone who does so as blind, drooling hateboy.

[Lycan 01]

I know what I say doesn't count for much, but I for one found your post to be informative and fair, Myatar... :smallsmile: It placed both games side by side and judged them with no bias. I now feel more comfortable about deciding which game to get for me and my friends to play...

[Myatar_Panwar]

I know what I say doesn't count for much, but I for one found your post to be informative and fair, Myatar... :smallsmile: It placed both games side by side and judged them with no bias. I now feel more comfortable about deciding which game to get for me and my friends to play...

Well thanks, but I wouldn't say that it was bias free. Its probably quite obvious which side I was rooting for in it, although I did try my best to be fair in my judgment.

[Zocelot]

I just love how 4ed fans berate 4ed anti-fans for lack of objectivism, blind hatred, and all that jazz, and then proceed to post something like "y'all just don't want your wizards to be balanced" or "y'all hate the whole system because of one single thing". Double standards are a beautiful thing.
Whew, that was harsh. But most of my dislike for 4ed comes actually from its "fans" who can't stand their beloved system being disliked or criticized and feel they need to dismiss everyone who does so as blind, drooling hateboy.

Everybody has an opinion, and everybody wants that opinion to be right. Pro-4e and anti-4e people alike will defend their opinions. For open minded people, a good argument will convince them of the opposite fact. For close minded people, there is no ability to change.

From what I've seen, there are more good arguments for pro-4e, while the anti-4e people seem not to be backing their opinions. There are, of course, exceptions to both cases.

[Saph]

Well thanks, but I wouldn't say that it was bias free. Its probably quite obvious which side I was rooting for in it, although I did try my best to be fair in my judgment.

You did, although you missed probably the biggest problem with 4e. It's not the lack of customisation, it's the lack of versatility; characters just can't do the things they could in 3.5. Pretty much all the really flexible abilities are gone, even ones that weren't at all game-breaking, like Stone Shape. This wouldn't be a problem if 4e wasn't called "Dungeons and Dragons", but since it is, it's hard to avoid comparing all the stuff you could do in 3.5 with the relatively limited choice set of 4e.

- Saph

[Swordguy]

Whew, that was harsh. But most of my dislike for 4ed comes actually from its "fans" who can't stand their beloved system being disliked or criticized and feel they need to dismiss everyone who does so as blind, drooling hateboy.

Whew, that was harsh. But most of my dislike for 3ed comes actually from its "fans" who can't stand their beloved system being disliked or criticized and feel they need to dismiss everyone who does so as blind, drooling hateboy.



(It works the same way...)

[Morty]

(It works the same way...)

Except it doesn't, because being critical towards some aspects of 4ed doesn't automatically mean you're a fanboy of 3ed.

[Spiryt]

You did, although you missed probably the biggest problem with 4e. It's not the lack of customisation, it's the lack of versatility; characters just can't do the things they could in 3.5. Pretty much all the really flexible abilities are gone, even ones that weren't at all game-breaking, like Stone Shape. This wouldn't be a problem if 4e wasn't called "Dungeons and Dragons", but since it is, it's hard to avoid comparing all the stuff you could do in 3.5 with the relatively limited choice set of 4e.

- Saph

Since Zocelot seems to be suggesting that people who criticize 4ed don't have arguments :

- Extremaly uncustomizable skill system
- completely nerfed multiclassing. My fauvorite Ranger/Barbarian/Rogue no longer
- everything limited to powers. In fact those "powers" are only quite interesting, customizable apect of game
- abilities makes even less sense. 4 Intel Fighter or even Ranger or Rogue! :smalleek: seems to be absolutely, totaly unnefred now, without skill points.
- less interesting feats
- NO POINT OF RANGED FIGHTER now. THis is just an example, certainly other classes are limited as well. THis really kicked me in the balls. Again, the fault of exploits, all being "melee weapon".

More can come later.

I'm not hater of 4ed, since I know not enough at the moment, I just pointed out few things that look grim.

[puppyavenger]

and this is why I'm just going to wait for the SRD to come out before I buy it.

There is going to be a SRD, right?

[ghost_warlock]

Everybody has an opinion, and everybody wants that opinion to be right. Pro-4e and anti-4e people alike will defend their opinions. For open minded people, a good argument will convince them of the opposite fact. For close minded people, there is no ability to change.

From what I've seen, there are more good arguments for pro-4e, while the anti-4e people seem not to be backing their opinions. There are, of course, exceptions to both cases.

Two words: confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

I've read almost every single 4e thread posted on this forum over the last two weeks. Both sides have been backing their opinions very well. The problem is that they all eventually break down into preferences - what individual posters are looking for in a game system. This is 100% subjective and can't be proven to be better or worse than one another.

Essentially, saying one system is generally "better" than the other is saying "you're playing D&D wrong!" (Which is ludicrous, with the possible exception of a group that played by first consuming scores of dice and then voided them onto the table when they needed to roll. And I'm sure some intellectual donkey will come up with a justification for playing the game like that, too.)

Saying a given system is better at something, is a bit different, though, and can probably be justified using rules and such.

Here is what I think, which I posted in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82052) a while back:


3e - high magic, insane amounts of splat, unshamedly caster-biased, doesn't hold your hand to prevent stupid mistakes.
4e - lower magic, more tactical, more class-balanced, tries to be idiot-proof.

(There, I am now officially repeating myself, which I'm sure most of us have done several times throughout this proliferation of repetitive threads.)

[Myatar_Panwar]

You did, although you missed probably the biggest problem with 4e. It's not the lack of customisation, it's the lack of versatility; characters just can't do the things they could in 3.5. Pretty much all the really flexible abilities are gone, even ones that weren't at all game-breaking, like Stone Shape. This wouldn't be a problem if 4e wasn't called "Dungeons and Dragons", but since it is, it's hard to avoid comparing all the stuff you could do in 3.5 with the relatively limited choice set of 4e.

- Saph

Yes, I suppose thats correct. 4E is missing out on alot of cool things that you could do in 3.5. But in my opinion, I think the trade off between versatility and balance was a good one.

And I wouldn't doubt it if WotC released a 4E splat book containing new utility powers or rituals with some of the cooler-yet-not-game-breaking spells from 3E.

[Zocelot]

Since Zocelot seems to be suggesting that people who criticize 4ed don't have arguments :

- Extremaly uncustomizable skill system
- completely nerfed multiclassing. My fauvorite Ranger/Barbarian/Rogue no longer
- everything limited to powers. In fact those "powers" are only quite interesting, customizable apect of game
- abilities makes even less sense. 4 Intel Fighter or even Ranger or Rogue! :smalleek: seems to be absolutely, totaly unnefred now, without skill points.
- less interesting feats
- NO POINT OF RANGED FIGHTER now. THis is just an example, certainly other classes are limited as well. THis really kicked me in the balls. Again, the fault of exploits, all being "melee weapon".

More can come later.

I'm not hater of 4ed, since I know not enough at the moment, I just pointed out few things that look grim.

All those points are true, however they do not negatively affect gameplay. Here is my list of counter points as to why not:

- If more customability was available, such as in 3.5e, people would select some skills and go all out in them, leaving all others blank. This means that people will either have a much higher chance of failing or succeeding.
-With clearly defined roles, you do not need a lot of classes to get the feel you want for your character. It also prevents small dips, which were almost always for the sole purpose of optimization.
-With point buy becoming the standard method for character generation and no racial penalties, there won't be a 4 int character. All you will have is a character who is slightly below average in one aspect.
-4e feats are not the same as 3.5e feats. Rather, 3.5e feats have become powers, while 4e feats are boosts.
-Fighters are tanks. A ranged fighter would be abysmal at tanking. By putting forth clearly designed niches for classes, it creates more group focused combat.

By my logic, 4e gameplay is an all around upgrade on 3.5e gameplay. To me, all your arguments are unfounded.

That said, because I do not want to start yet another gigantic argument, I will not respond to any further points put up.

[Jade_Tarem]

You did, although you missed probably the biggest problem with 4e. It's not the lack of customisation, it's the lack of versatility; characters just can't do the things they could in 3.5. Pretty much all the really flexible abilities are gone, even ones that weren't at all game-breaking, like Stone Shape. This wouldn't be a problem if 4e wasn't called "Dungeons and Dragons", but since it is, it's hard to avoid comparing all the stuff you could do in 3.5 with the relatively limited choice set of 4e.

- Saph

I'm not all that well informed on 4e, so I'm actually asking: is there something preventing an increase in flexibility/versatility later?

[Ned the undead]

So, let me get this straight, you like the fact that the rules are simpler... and you like the fact that you can make a powerful character without any thought.

You like the fact that all the characters are powerful no matter what they do. You seem to like alot of power in your games. Some people, mind you, like to play D&D for the social and roleplaying experience... not just to have the most powerful character(s). And those people have some issues with 4e and it's predominence of simplified rules and balance over internal consistency.

Yeah I don't like that part on page 47 in the 4e PHB that says your not allowed to roleplay anymore either.

[HeirToPendragon]

I'm not all that well informed on 4e, so I'm actually asking: is there something preventing an increase in flexibility/versatility later?

Nope. There isn't really that much of a block to it now. Sure you're not gonna have your Sorcerer/Bard/Rogue/Fighter, but here's a class that does exactly the same thing. I've looked through multiclassing and unless you really really feel the need to, it's never really necessary based on the powers people have.

I don't know why people are saying that the game isn't flexible or versatile. It's still D&D people, get with your DM and do some house rules. The DMs guide actually encourages it.


Yeah I don't like that part on page 47 in the 4e PHB that says your not allowed to roleplay naymore either.

Oh I know, that page was terrible. Good thing we found a way to work around it.

[Saph]

I'm not all that well informed on 4e, so I'm actually asking: is there something preventing an increase in flexibility/versatility later?

I think it's a moot point, because don't think the designers at WotC want to increase flexibility/versatility. I get the strong impression that one of the goals of 4e was to force players to play the 'right' way. The versatile spells and abilities that let you do things the designers didn't anticipate seem to have been deliberately removed, which makes me doubtful that they're coming back.

- Saph

[Matthew]

Two words: confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

I've read almost every single 4e thread posted on this forum over the last two weeks. Both sides have been backing their opinions very well. The problem is that they all eventually break down into preferences - what individual posters are looking for in a game system. This is 100% subjective and can't be proven to be better or worse than one another.

Essentially, saying one system is generally "better" than the other is saying "you're playing D&D wrong!" (Which is ludicrous, with the possible exception of a group that played by first consuming scores of dice and then voided them onto the table when they needed to roll. And I'm sure some intellectual donkey will come up with a justification for playing the game like that, too.)

Saying a given system is better at something, is a bit different, though, and can probably be justified using rules and such.

Here is what I think, which I posted in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82052) a while back:



(There, I am now officially repeating myself, which I'm sure most of us have done several times throughout this proliferation of repetitive threads.)
Ooh. Welcome to my world. Get used to repeating yourself... a lot. The craziest moments are when somebody turns up on an Out of Print Forum and literally writes (in all seriousness) "I think you guys need to stop living in the past and get with the new edition" (true story (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=95757)).

[Spiryt]

That said, because I do not want to start yet another gigantic argument, I will not respond to any further points put up.

As you wish. I, however feel like responding to your arguments.



- If more customability was available, such as in 3.5e, people would select some skills and go all out in them, leaving all others blank. This means that people will either have a much higher chance of failing or succeeding.


Dude, that's the whole POINT. Whole ponit of roleplaying and creating characters is to have ranger who, let's say is great climber, while he can't swim at all. Or is from some reason good diplomacer, even though he's ranger.



-With clearly defined roles, you do not need a lot of classes to get the feel you want for your character. It also prevents small dips, which were almost always for the sole purpose of optimization.
-With point buy becoming the standard method for character generation and no racial penalties, there won't be a 4 int character. All you will have is a character who is slightly below average in one aspect.
-4e feats are not the same as 3.5e feats. Rather, 3.5e feats have become powers, while 4e feats are boosts.
-Fighters are tanks. A ranged fighter would be abysmal at tanking. By putting forth clearly designed niches for classes, it creates more group focused combat. [/QUOTE]


This all means: " niches are now all, goodbye archers, beacuse fighter is tank " :smalleek:

This is supposed to be RPG. I want an proffesional soldier - archer. Now I can't, beacuse to be archer you had to be ranger. Of course it's all about fluff, but still ranger is outdoorsman, wandrer, etc, nothing can change that. If I don't want my archer to be like that, I can stuff up.

4ed looks like more complicated chess, not like RPG ( even very flawed one, like 3.5).

[Swordguy]

Ooh. Welcome to my world. Get used to repeating yourself... a lot. The craziest moments are when somebody turns up on an Out of Print Forum and literally writes (in all seriousness) "I think you guys need to stop living in the past and get with the new edition" (true story (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=95757)).

Wow. That actually happened?

I don't think there's a /facepalm picture big enough to express what needs to be expressed right about now.

[HeirToPendragon]

Why don't you just build a Ranger Archer but play him off as a soldier? I don't think your DM will care too much if the skills you train in are Fighter skills. You get the archer powers from the ranger but you role play it that you are from the militia of the king.

[Matthew]

Wow. That actually happened?

I don't think there's a /facepalm picture big enough to express what needs to be expressed right about now.

Yep, friggin' crazy. If it happened once, it'll probably happen again (I have a feeling I am just forgeting other occasions).

[Illiterate Scribe]

Wow. That actually happened?

I don't think there's a /facepalm picture big enough to express what needs to be expressed right about now.

KING OF FACEPALMS, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH .JPGS?

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z319/H4ACN/facepalm.jpg

http://theanteheroes.com/Humor/MassFacepalm.jpg

All I can say is that I'm increasingly interested in Tippy's 3.7e, that he's drafting.

I think that the optimal power baseline was set with psions being the most balanced examples of casters, factotums being the best examples of skill monkeys, and Tome of Battle being the best examples of Melee.

That's what 4e should have been, and what we were promised, for a while.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Call your ranger soldier, replace maneuver names, and your golden.

[Spiryt]

Why don't you just build a Ranger Archer but play him off as a soldier? I don't think your DM will care too much if the skills you train in are Fighter skills. You get the archer powers from the ranger but you role play it that you are from the militia of the king.

Indeed, it seems that Ranger is mainly archer/twfigher now, which sucks. Still, I can't even customize his skills now, to make him more "soldiery". No feats can help me too, as they're minor nonuses now.

To be pathfinder, I must take TWF :smallconfused: And "pathfinding" acording to creators, means " quicker slashing " and parazlyzing enemy. So lame.

No customization. Everything focused on fighitng. Indeed, it possibly will make fight more interesting (after homebrewing distances etc, of course).

[puppyavenger]

- If more customability was available, such as in 3.5e, people would select some skills and go all out in them, leaving all others blank. This means that people will either have a much higher chance of failing or succeeding.
-With clearly defined roles, you do not need a lot of classes to get the feel you want for your character. It also prevents small dips, which were almost always for the sole purpose of optimization.
-With point buy becoming the standard method for character generation and no racial penalties, there won't be a 4 int character. All you will have is a character who is slightly below average in one aspect.

I think this annoys some people(like me) because it's fun t sometimes play a Barbarian with 3 intelligence, r a savant without the common sense to not run to a bookshelf through a bunch of traps.

[ghost_warlock]

KING OF FACEPALMS, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH .JPGS?

http://theanteheroes.com/Humor/MassFacepalm.jpg

Thank you for the wonderful new wallpaper for my desktop. :smallsmile:

[Spiryt]

I think this annoys some people(like me) because it's fun t sometimes play a Barbarian with 3 intelligence, r a savant without the common sense to not run to a bookshelf through a bunch of traps.

Great point too.

I want to play idiotic Thog with 3 INt - sure I can.
I want to play highly intelligent Barbarian ? I can too, although it would be quite pointless mechanicaly, ( the obvious flaw of 3.5)

And in 4ed ?

It's good that classes don't have automaticaly aligned stats :smalltongue:?

[HeirToPendragon]

I think this annoys some people(like me) because it's fun t sometimes play a Barbarian with 3 intelligence, r a savant without the common sense to not run to a bookshelf through a bunch of traps.

Barbarians will be back soon in the neck spat book

For now, why don't you just play a beefy fighter with 8 Int (or, you know, the book does actually say you could roll the die and hope for a 4) and play him off as some idiotic hammerhead?

There is nothing in the rules that says you can't do this people. You can play your character any way you like with or without DM approval. Just because there is no swashbuckling class doesn't mean you can't say your rogue used to be the Dread Pirate Roberts.

4e has taken away almost all the roleplaying guidelines stuff because you should be doing it yourself!

[Zocelot]

I think this annoys some people(like me) because it's fun t sometimes play a Barbarian with 3 intelligence, r a savant without the common sense to not run to a bookshelf through a bunch of traps.

Personally, I always enjoyed the aspect of "Nobody knows how this character works better then me. I control their every action. That's almost like I am the character" My characters were always something that I'd want to be, and that is the aspect of roleplaying that I find fun.

I'm not saying you're wrong though, I can completely respect that you have fun a different way then me.

[Zocelot]

4e has taken away almost all the roleplaying guidelines stuff because you should be doing it yourself!

4e changes what you roleplay, but not how you roleplay it. Still, this is a restriction that would be better off if it were magically removed without affecting the remaining system.

[Spiryt]

4e has taken away almost all the roleplaying guidelines stuff because you should be doing it yourself!

I don't want roleplaying guides. I want Inteligence of my character to have effect in gmae mechanics, cause why shouldn't it have?

[HeirToPendragon]

No, I think for you, right now, the question is why isn't it?

How would intelligence affect your character aside from RP? Well I guess you could deliberately nerf all your INT skills... oh wait it does that. Maybe it would skrew up some powers that deal with Int... oh yeah it does that too. Can't cast rituals, well I guess that would be something you force yourself not to do.

If you want a character with 4 INT, put a 4 there. I don't see the problem here and I doubt your DM will see the problem either.

[Spiryt]

If you want a character with 4 INT, put a 4 there. I don't see the problem here and I doubt your DM will see the problem either.

And such idiot will gain new experience just as well as any genius. For example.

As I said : in previous editions, Inteligence was a bit "weak" stat, even though not so much as poor Charisma. Now everything went dumber again.

[puppyavenger]

And such idiot will gain new experience just as well as any genius. For example.

As I said : in previous editions, Inteligence was a bit "weak" stat, even though not so much as poor Charisma. Now everything went dumber again.

why does wisdom combine force of will, common sense, and perceptiveness all together again? it's the only impotent mental now.

[HeirToPendragon]

And such idiot will gain new experience just as well as any genius. For example.

As I said : in previous editions, Inteligence was a bit "weak" stat, even though not so much as poor Charisma. Now everything went dumber again.

What are you even arguing anymore?!

[Spiryt]

why does wisdom combine force of will, common sense, and perceptiveness all together again? it's the only impotent mental now.

You mean important ?


What are you even arguing anymore?!

I'm not sure I get it. I'm arguing the same thing as before.

[wakazashi.juice]

I believe that 4th edition may well be a better system, but I don't want all 20 or so of my 3.5 books to have been a waste of money. I'm fine with 3.5 for all its shortcomings; I still have fun with it.

[KillianHawkeye]

@ ghost_warlock: Thanks for the link. I found this passage particularly relevant:


Polarization effect
See also: Attitude polarization

Polarization occurs when mixed or neutral evidence is used to bolster an already established and clearly biased point of view. As a result, people on both sides can move farther apart, or polarize, when they are presented with the same mixed evidence.

Personally, I like most of the changes that 4e is bringing. I also still like 3.5e just fine. I will not be converting my 3.5 campaign (currently about 1/3 of the way complete) to 4e. I am capable of liking both, and I don't see why everybody is arguing so "all or nothing" about it. It's like some warped version of Highlander ("There can be ONLY ONE") or Thunderdome ("Two Eds enter, one Ed leaves"). :smallsigh:

[Jade_Tarem]

KING OF FACEPALMS, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH .JPGS?

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z319/H4ACN/facepalm.jpg

http://theanteheroes.com/Humor/MassFacepalm.jpg


I know this is off topic, but I especially like the Megabyte one.

[Sequinox]

After reading this, I wish I hadn't ordered the gift boxed set from amazon for 40$ less. I wish I had spent that extra money and gotten it on Friday.

I'm surprised at how much talk there is already about this, though. All of the sudden, you see [3.0/3.5]tags on threads two days after 4e! Thats insane in both a good and bad way.

[Matthew]

Hey, the new edition is here. Get with the times. :smallwink:

Seriously, though, I hope the tags become normal procedure.

[Talya]

Nothing in 4e makes it worth switching from 3.5 too. With a few minor exceptions, I prefer 3.5 in almost every way.

[Helgraf]

Indeed, it seems that Ranger is mainly archer/twfigher now, which sucks. Still, I can't even customize his skills now, to make him more "soldiery". No feats can help me too, as they're minor nonuses now.

To be pathfinder, I must take TWF :smallconfused: And "pathfinding" acording to creators, means " quicker slashing " and parazlyzing enemy. So lame.

No customization. Everything focused on fighitng. Indeed, it possibly will make fight more interesting (after homebrewing distances etc, of course).

You're obsessing over the label.

Build a archery path ranger. If really neccesary, take the Feat : Skill Training to get whichever soldiery skills you need that Fighter has that Ranger does not.

Boom. "Soldier with bow". Effective. Roleplay as you see fit.

Not hard.

[Helgraf]

Great point too.

I want to play idiotic Thog with 3 INt - sure I can.
I want to play highly intelligent Barbarian ? I can too, although it would be quite pointless mechanicaly, ( the obvious flaw of 3.5)

And in 4ed ?

It's good that classes don't have automaticaly aligned stats :smalltongue:?

Ya know, if you really _want_ to play a character with a starting stat less than 8, I'm sure your DM can permit it. Sheesh. There's nothing in the PHB that says you can't deliberately subpar yourself if you so desire for your concept.

[HeirToPendragon]

You're obsessing over the label.

Build a archery path ranger. If really neccesary, take the Feat : Skill Training to get whichever soldiery skills you need that Fighter has that Ranger does not.

Boom. "Soldier with bow". Effective. Roleplay as you see fit.

Not hard.


Ya know, if you really _want_ to play a character with a starting stat less than 8, I'm sure your DM can permit it. Sheesh. There's nothing in the PHB that says you can't deliberately subpar yourself if you so desire for your concept.

Dude just don't bother. I've been trying to say that and they just keep staring at me blankly

[ghost_warlock]

I am capable of liking both, and I don't see why everybody is arguing so "all or nothing" about it.

Exactly. I would play 4e just fine but until some of my favorite character concepts are developed in the system I'll prefer 3e.


It's like some warped version of Highlander ("There can be ONLY ONE") or Thunderdome ("Two Eds enter, one Ed leaves"). :smallsigh:

Well, didn't you know that old editions are actually undead? They arise at night from their dusty boxes in storage in order to feed on the ink of the living editions. Those who consort with these twisted tomes are known as necrogamers and their incantations are utterly incomprehensible to those who restrict themselves to editions still in print.

Necrogamer points his finger and shouts: "You fools! Witness the power of OOP! Power Word: THAC0!"
New Edition Players: "AAAARRrrrgghh! It burns, it burns!!!!!"

[GlordFunkelhand]

man people's complaints against 4e are mind boggling
'theres no flavor text given'
so you're...encouraged to make your own?
oh god the entire book sets are competlely focused on combat and combat related stuff
its almost like they want me to make up a story and people and stuff


Sorry, have to call BS on that one.
If you have played for ages, getting some rules is enough. You take the rules and your ongoing campaign and start playing. But what about new players? New GMs?
D&D has always been heavier on the hack'n'slay part than other games, but 4e seems to have less flavor than the SRD.
Reading it feels more like the new version of the minis game.

I like a lot of the 4e ideas a lot, I think the system is a good starting point. But the PHP has severe editing issues, and you don't have to be specialized in divination to see a 4.5e in the near future. Or at least hope for it.

It just doesn't feel like the rules are finished and fully though through.

[Zocelot]

Sorry, have to call BS on that one.
If you have played for ages, getting some rules is enough. You take the rules and your ongoing campaign and start playing. But what about new players? New GMs?

It just doesn't feel like the rules are finished and fully though through.

New GMs and Players will be more Hack n Slash, and this is a bad thing. However, WotC obviously believed it would attract more people to the game, and in my opinion more new Hack n Slash players are better then no new players.

[bosssmiley]

Well, didn't you know that old editions are actually undead? They arise at night from their dusty boxes in storage in order to feed on the ink of the living editions. Those who consort with these twisted tomes are known as necrogamers and their incantations are utterly incomprehensible to those who restrict themselves to editions still in print.

Necrogamer points his finger and shouts: "You fools! Witness the power of OOP! Power Word: THAC0!"
New Edition Players: "AAAARRrrrgghh! It burns, it burns!!!!!"

And you think he's joking, don't you? :smallamused:

*grumbles about crazy kids burning around the place in their stripped-down, bored-out street rod games. Where's the love? Where's the craftsmanship? It ain't a proper game unless it has mahogany coachwork, running boards and a honkable horn dammit!* :smalltongue:

V-- I think the OP may be in error. 4E powers = 3E class features.

[tumble check]

Let me ask a new question.

The OP mentioned how Feats from 3.5e have essentially been replaced with Powers in 4e. Firstly, that's not completely true, but at least 80% of the Powers are attacks, whereas 3.5e Feats usually were not. Anyway, it seems that WotC is discouraging normal attacks (which you still CAN do, if I'm not mistaken). Indeed, now low-level character have awesome crap to do, but am I alone in thinking that having awesome crap to do in the beginning makes is less satisfying in the end? Where is the romance of character crescendo?

It seems to me that WotC is increasing the "pick up and play"-ability of this game. To me, DnD has not been something that n00bz can start playing and instantly "OMG SHOOTE FIREBALLS AND BEHEAD STUF!1", it was something that you begin slowly, with a group of friends, developing your character over time, and eventually grow them into some satisfying end. Call me a hardcore gamer, but this is my position. If you want an awesome easy-to-play, easy-to-learn, quick-paced game with a grid and some flavor too, go to your local game shop and pick up one of those big expensive boxes.

I'm not really looking for an attack from HeirToPendragon, because I know plenty of people disagree with me. I want to know if anyone agrees with me on this.


On a side note, it's true that players should provide their own flavor, when necessary. I'm referring to the Fighter's lack of support for ranged weapons, with a "flavored" Ranger as the solution. However, I don't think that this can be used as an excuse to say that WotC shouldn't need to provide their own flavor, either. What the game creators say in their books is very powerful, much more powerful than any story I can make up for something. Canon is canon, if it weren't, we wouldn't be arguing about this stuff. The fact that there are now "roles" for characters in 4e is why they made the Fighter melee-only(you can't have the "Defender" i.e. meatshield firing from the back, can you?), and it is yet another reason why I hate that they had to explicitly recognize and mechanically enforce the roles.

[banjo1985]

I guess it depends on your groups gaming style on whether 3.5 or 4th edition is your preference.

3.5 definitely seems to have an edge in custimisation and being able to wring the rules for everrything they're worth to get that last bit of an advantage for your character. But I'm not sure how much of that is because it has 3 or 4years of splat books and material to back up the base mechanics, whereas 4th edition is just starting off.

I have just bought 4th edition an hour or so ago, and from what I know about it I think it will be a better system for my gaming group. We like roleplaying and having fun, and we don't like that relying on creating just the right kind of character and spending hours working out which feats and spells to pick out. If 4th edition lets you create the mechanics for a character in half an hour and balances things out then we'll be happy.

However, I can understand so many people hating the direction in which 4th edition is going. If you like the challenge of customising yourself the best character possible and don't mind the imbalance between an optimised character and a standard one, then I can see why 3.5 is much more attractive to you. For us, we want to get into a game quickly and start the story, so 4th looks like a better bet for us.

[Talya]

It seems to me that WotC is increasing the "pick up and play"-ability of this game.

Which leads me to something I hadn't thought of before...

I could see, in a couple years, WotC releasing "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition." (The current 4e being "Basic.")

[Skyserpent]

Which leads me to something I hadn't thought of before...

I could see, in a couple years, WotC releasing "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition." (The current 4e being "Basic.")

Now that is a scary and possibly more likely thought than 4.5...

heh... If that ends up happening I will laugh SO hard...

[Saph]

I have just bought 4th edition an hour or so ago, and from what I know about it I think it will be a better system for my gaming group. We like roleplaying and having fun, and we don't like that relying on creating just the right kind of character and spending hours working out which feats and spells to pick out. If 4th edition lets you create the mechanics for a character in half an hour and balances things out then we'll be happy.

Yup, 4e is definitely better that way. Partly it's because the choices for a character are limited enough that it's hard to make bad ones - you could deliberately try to pick bad feats and powers, and you still wouldn't be far behind the other PCs. It makes a better system for new players and ones who don't like fiddling with characters.

- Saph

[tumble check]

AD&D4e sounds neat, but it's still a completely different game than past iterations.

For the record, I'm not an optimizer or power-gamer, and yet I still prefer the character building options in 3.5e.

[Morty]

You're obsessing over the label.

Build a archery path ranger. If really neccesary, take the Feat : Skill Training to get whichever soldiery skills you need that Fighter has that Ranger does not.

Boom. "Soldier with bow". Effective. Roleplay as you see fit.

Not hard.

Just because you can make something work even with little effort doesn't mean this something isn't stupid in the first place. And you can't really make up for the fact that fighters need Int even less than in 3ed.

[AmberVael]

Personally, I think 4E went too far in solving the problems that 3.5 presented.

Example 1: skills.
Frankly, there were too many skill ranks in 3.5. It was really hard to specialize (or rather, you had to focus completely on a few groups of skills and thats it), and some skills just weren't worth it at all (And a few should have been combined). Craft? Profession? Perform for a non bard? Yeah... and why were Disable Device and Open Lock different skills?. If you didn't have it as a class skill you stunk at it and that was it.
So 4E comes in and makes skill checks more level dependent and not dependent on focusing on it. They basically went from 3.5's 23 ranks of doooooom to freakin' binary.
Not quite what I was looking for in a fix. I prefer the 3.5 system's take on skills, because it allows for more customization, but I'd prefer something that made it interesting to take "fluffy" skills, that allowed you a good reason not to just pick a couple of skills and max them, and also made it so that there weren't so many ranks in each skill. I could see a skill system with 5-10 ranks very easily, and I think it would work nicely.

Example 2: Casters OWN YOUR SOUUUUUUL!
3.5 made it so that basically, anything you can do, casters can do better. Somehow, people seemed not to like this (gee, wonder why). They couldn't deal tons of damage, perhaps, but they didn't need to- they could take someone out with mind rays (domination). Out of combat, they could solve all the problems. Fly. Levitate. Scrying. Etc. The problem here was that Casters could contribute in almost every way needed out of combat, and the rest of the party just got to twiddle their thumbs (poor fighter).
So 4E comes in and says two things:
1) EVERYONE FIGHTS! Every class basically deals damage, or makes a tiny adjustment to what the enemy (or your allies) can do, and THEN deals damage. There really aren't all that many differences in the powers, and it's somewhat disappointing- but understandable. I looked it all over and was like "you know, I could deal with combat being like this. It would be pretty good." But then I noticed something:
2) Outside of combat, EVERYONE CASTS!
With the dilution of the skill system, rituals are really the only out of combat thing you can do that is truly impressive. Now I'm fine with the idea of rituals, rituals are cool- but when I wanted all the other party members to contribute out of combat, I wasn't quite thinking we should make them all farkin' casters. I was thinking we might need to limit the abilities casters can use (make them have a more specific discipline perhaps, or just a lower amount of powers), and then allow other people to contribute in their own manner (maybe special uses of skill checks, or just their own types of noncombat abilities).
Idk, I just wasn't very fond of the lack of out of combat progression.

4E is a good game, yes. It has a good combat system (in my opinion) which has a moderation between control and damage (if maybe a leeeettle too reliant on damage), allows tactics, and is highly streamlined and simplified (and balanced!). But I think the out of combat and more creative abilities of players have suffered. Customization and skills have gone to the wayside, and while 3.5 had some big issues in terms of those, it at least allowed people to try at them.

I'm busy thinking of how I can make my own system now. I'd like to see a midway point between 3.5 and 4E, because I think it would fit my style far better than either one.

[jkdjr25]

I'd like to take a moment here to say a few things.

I don't think there's anyone saying that you shouldn't like 4th edition or that anyone should stop liking 3.5, although I could be wrong here.

For me, and I can only speak for myself, I've read the 4th edition rules and discussed them with my friends, who've also read them; and we've come to the conclusion that we're not going to make the switch. We decided this because we just don't like the new rules. They don't fit what we like to do or how we like to play.

This does not detract from anyone else enjoying 4th edition, nor should it. If you like 4th, by all means have fun and enjoy yourself. Just don't tell those of us who don't like 4th that our opinion doesn't count. The world's big enough for all of us, let's remember that we're all gamers here. We shouldn't be at each other's throats over a rules change.