My opinions (and your's) on 4th Edition

[YvizztX23]

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 . 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]

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 . 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]

The search function is your friend. This line of questioning has been done a hundred times.

[The Glyphstone]

{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]

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]

But gamers love to argue.

No we don't

[Chrono22]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

5e is just Wii Bowling.

[Mystic Muse]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?
how is 3.5 actually better than 4e?
Why do you like DnD 3.5? (obviously not about 4e inherently, but it was brought up as always for no reason whatsoever)
The best part of 4e for you. (again, nothing about 3e but it got brought up anyways)
3.5 vs 4e
[3.5 and 4e] Two Editions is Hard
Is 3.5 Obsolete? (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]

Strawberry!

[sofawall]

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]

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.