Why did people hate 4e?

[Felorn]

All I want out of this thread is to see why many people hated 4e so much. Please no rude or snappy comments, only well thought out ones. I've noticed most of the hate comes from 3.5 players, but a couple older gamers, mainly grogs that hate everything newer than 1e, too. I've heard the oh so common its "WoW on paper", "its a video game with dice", and the worst of the worst, "there is no roleplaying". I would rather hear significant reason, not, its not D&D. Please no flames I'm just wanting to know legit reasons why people hate it.

[Scowling Dragon]

{{scrubbed}}

[Felorn]

All I want out of this thread is to see why many people hated 4e so much. Please no rude or snappy comments, only well thought out ones. I've noticed most of the hate comes from 3.5 players, but a couple older gamers, mainly grogs that hate everything newer than 1e, too. I've heard the oh so common its "WoW on paper", "its a video game with dice", and the worst of the worst, "there is no roleplaying". I would rather hear significant reason, not, its not D&D. Please no flames I'm just wanting to know legit reasons why people hate it.

[Boci]

All classes based off the same formula is a big one for me. All classes are also the same tier, thus reducing the versatility of the game system. And their is always the problem of martial character's with daily powers.

[Fatebreaker]

All I want out of this thread is to see why many people hated 4e so much. Please no rude or snappy comments, only well thought out ones. I've noticed most of the hate comes from 3.5 players, but a couple older gamers, mainly grogs that hate everything newer than 1e, too. I've heard the oh so common its "WoW on paper", "its a video game with dice", and the worst of the worst, "there is no roleplaying". I would rather hear significant reason, not, its not D&D. Please no flames I'm just wanting to know legit reasons why people hate it.

I think the problem you'll run into is that much of the dislike for 4e stems from subjectivity. It's a good game, solid rules, clear goals, balanced classes, that sort of thing. It's got some mechanical shortfalls, and there are things it doesn't cover, but a lot of those are things it doesn't want to deal with in the first place. It makes changes from previous editions, and if one of those changes was your baby, then you're going to be mad no matter how good a game 4e is, because it doesn't have the thing that mattered to you.

It's a tactical skirmish simulator over which you can add roleplaying elements to the degree that suits your game. If you like that, you're good. If you don't, you're not.

Or, like SD said:

This is inviting a big flamewar thats not worth the effort. Run little man. Run.

Good luck, Felorn. I hope you get your answer. I would leave you with one question:

Why does it matter?

[Craft (Cheese)]

All I want out of this thread is to see why many people hated 4e so much. Please no rude or snappy comments, only well thought out ones. I've noticed most of the hate comes from 3.5 players, but a couple older gamers, mainly grogs that hate everything newer than 1e, too. I've heard the oh so common its "WoW on paper", "its a video game with dice", and the worst of the worst, "there is no roleplaying". I would rather hear significant reason, not, its not D&D. Please no flames I'm just wanting to know legit reasons why people hate it.

Please note I (for the most part) don't agree with these complaints, so 4E defenders please keep this in mind before the flames come in. But here are the most common (constructive) complaints I've seen about it:

1. Every class uses the same subsystem for its powers, the AEDU system (At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility). There are a few tiny variations (like the Wizard's spellbook) but these aren't enough: Compared to 3.5 where there were all sorts of different ways a classes abilities could work like Vancian, Maneuvers, Incarnum, etc. Playing a Warlock felt very different from playing a Warblade in 3.5, and this has been lost in 4E.

2. The multiclassing system, even with the addition of hybrids, is extremely restrictive compared to what 3.5 allowed. One thing you could do in 3.5 is have a character who transforms over time: A barbarian who has a sudden divine revelation and becomes a cleric, a Barbarian 5 / Cleric 15. 4E's multiclassing/hybridizing doesn't really support this, it has to be kept purely in your character's fluff. The reinforcement of a character through game mechanics is a powerful thing, and this is part of a class system's purpose.

3. 4E has a "padded sumo" effect. Especially at higher levels, it takes tons of rounds to take anything down because hit points are so high relative to damage.

4. Classes have few truly unique powers, with many powers simply being slight edits of one another. This, combined with problem 1, is the reason behind the "samey" feel of 4E games.

5. Skill challenges. Instead of solving a noncombat encounter by, you know, being creative and having fun, you just roll X times and see what numbers came up.

6. Many people don't like the idea of magic items being common things that every character is decorated head to toe with (The "Christmas Tree" effect). 4E exacerbated this problem by making magic items more necessary for characters to function properly than ever.

7. While 3.5 relied on distances somewhat, 4E's new tactical combat made playing without a battle map next to impossible. Many attributed this to WotC just trying to sell more miniatures.

[Shadowknight12]

Wow. I find it so eerie that every few months, there's a thread that says the exact same things in its OP and which always devolves into edition wars.

Some people hate 4e. Some people hate 3e. Some people hate PF. Some people hate all three. Some people don't hate any of those. Some people hate some things of each.

5e is just around the corner and 4e is about to be discontinued.

Let. It. Go.

[Grinner]

It was a huge change from previous editions, which had tended toward increasing complexity, but the same basic experience.

As for the so-called lack of roleplaying, I'd attribute that to the genericalness of each class's abilities and the lack of fluff in the core books. Really, D&D has never enforced RP. It's always been about killing monsters and taking their stuff.

{{scrubbed}}

Edit:

Wow. I find it so eerie that every few months, there's a thread that says the exact same things in its OP and which always devolves into edition wars.

Some people hate 4e. Some people hate 3e. Some people hate PF. Some people hate all three. Some people don't hate any of those. Some people hate some things of each.

5e is just around the corner and 4e is about to be discontinued.

Let. It. Go.

Consider the possibility that he wasn't around for the last thread.

[Mordokai]

I got this... I don't know where, anymore. But I liked it enough to save a copy on my hard drive, so I can now do some copy/pasta for you.

Criticism
Some of the criticisms leveled at 4e include:
Power-based combat is too similar to MMOGs, in particular World of Warcraft.
The powers themselves are very cookie-cutter in nature, as most rely on a number of stock effects (such as "Slide", "Slow", "Stun", "Spend a healing surge", etc.)
The fluff descriptions of the powers are incomprehensible. The world-fluff is also generally silly - even if some argue it is actually unnecessary to pay attention to the core fluff at all it still feels like a bad writer's fantasy heartbreaker. Examples also include the infamous Bear Lore check which requires an unusually high Nature Knowledge check to know that bears use their claws to attack. Give that one a second to settle before you continue reading.
Characters are too durable, reducing the fear of death and TPK. On the other hand, a series of playtest combats carried out by Touhoufags show that a party that knows what it's doing and uses group tactics well will cut through encounters several levels higher than themselves like a hot knife through butter.
Lack of content and rules to cover various situations are rationalized with "OH YOU JUST LET THE DM COME UP WITH AN AD-HOC SOLUTION AND WING IT." This wasn't any less viable in any other edition, but now this is somehow played off as a strength.
The skill challenge system, which was supposed to cover non-combat action sequences, was completely broken as-published, to the point that difficulties were inverted (in many cases it was impossible to accrue four successes before two failures on a complexity 1 skill challenge, while it was often nearly impossible to fail a high-complexity skill challenge), and the published examples of negotiation made Fighters completely useless in skill challenges because their lone class social skill, Intimidate, generated automatic failures (which was completely against the intention of the skill challenge rules). The mechanics have since been errataed into a more usable form.
Some feel that the decrease in rules, while welcomed, didn't go far enough. Some people wanted to open up the DMG and see "BULL**** IT." Many people want to pay hundreds of dollars for books with no content. Afterall, that's what "streamlined" is, right?
Overreliance on unimaginative 'adjectivenoun' naming conventions, for instance: Darkleaf Armor: Darkleaves from the gravetrees of the Shadowfell give this armor its protective properties..
Lack of non-combat content such as crafting. This criticism partially refers to the reduced skill list and partially to the fact that the greatest focus of the game are obviously the Powers which are largely combat-oriented. The "Adventurer's Vault" item supplement that came out adds to the strength of this argument; it reads like a WoW item encyclopedia.
Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.
The Mongol dilemma--soldiers on horseback can defeat a number of the game's monsters by virtue of the monsters not having decent ranged attacks.
Giving a flying monster a bow breaks the game.
Blatantly obvious RNG-sodomizing powers that were somehow overlooked.
Various broken abilities that demonstrate a lack of playtesting and/or willful disregard for legitimate concerns (Orbizard, Demigod epic destiny, rangers soloing Orcus, and so on).
Complete lack of internal consistency: assuming a dynamic world in which NPCs are cognizant (and thus not static "mobiles" to kill for XP and loot) causes the game to break down.
The entire economic system is a cluster**** of not-sense-making.
Vastly dissociated mechanics: how do I describe what's going on in a way that makes sense? Too many powers cripple the ability to narrate a cohesive scene outside of a completely metagame interpretation.
Daily powers for non-casters. "I can only swing for 6[W] + Strength damage once per day!"
Entire armies of high-level minions die in a sandstorm.
Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.
A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes.
Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)
Shoehorning the game into hackan 'n' slashan mode.
Use of Dungeons and Dragons terms in 4e abilities that don't make any sense. Examples: The 'Sleep' spell doesn't put anything to sleep in 4e terms, 'Disintegrate' doesn't disintegrate, spells and rituals named after characters, even though there is no way to research spells and rituals, among others.
Elimination of iconic spells, class features, and whole classes in the name of balance--try playing an enchanter, summoner, or necromancer in Core 4e. Try playing a druid in Core 4e. Or a ranger with an animal companion. Or a witch with a familiar. Or a bard. Or a monk. (EDIT: Actually most of these classes have been deferred to other books [sold separately] rather than outright eliminated. Good news is they're all considered 'core,' as though the term still had meaning.)
Exception-based design wanking, plus **** like the four different "evil eye" variations. Includes ability interaction and "How the hell do I adjudicate this?"
Usage of page 42 to replace actual rules.
HP bloat resulting in grinding and "padded sumo" at higher levels
Solo encounters suck--they're boring grindfests.
Ritual system is retarded.
Instead of eliminating the 15-minute workday, the devs put everyone on the 15-minute workday schedule.
Swathes of poorly-written and vaguely-worded mechanics.
Everyone playing the same class is generally superior to everyone playing a different class.

Note, if memory serves, this came out rather soon after 4E was released, so some of those complaints are bound to be already rectified, at least to a degree. I haven't been playing 4E in forever, so I can't say how much excatly.

For the record, I happen to like 4E. It's a solid system for what it does, but I still think a vast majority of those complaints are valid.

[PersonMan]

I've never truly hated it, but I didn't like how everything was changed. The reason I don't really like it that it took something (a massive degree of versatility via multiclassing, hordes of classes and PrCs and great mechanical diversity) away to gain greater balance, which for me has never really been a problem. I've tried 4E and combat doesn't seem to be all that interesting (although, to be honest, I was using a premade character, which was probably part of the problem). I used my daily and encounter powers and the fight wasn't over, so I was reduced to 'do something really minor' early in the battle...at level 10.

These are problems that, for me, take away any incentive to further learn the system.

[Knaight]

I had a long post, but the forum ate it. So, to briefly recap: I'd consider 4e a messy system, generally lacking in mechanical elegance, that suffers from its connection to the rest of D&D, which shares these flaws. For instance, there is an overabundance of different scales (attribute ranges, skill ranges, defense ranges, so on and so forth. These could be on a single unified scale, but they aren't, and while it's better than with earlier editions it's still sloppy). In addition to this, 4e was generally streamlined poorly, and tended to lose more than it gained: the loss of diagonal movement rates was a tiny gain in streamlining, where an abstract system would have easily worked. 4e also implemented new features poorly, such as skill challenges that initially got easier when they were supposed to get more difficult due to how the math played out, and the whole At Will/Encounter/Daily system, which strongly forces a certain in game schedule, despite At Will/Per Scene/Per Chapter being an obvious option that bypasses this. It also continues D&Ds legacy of failing horribly outside of combat situations, and with the removal of most non-combat spells and the questionable implementation of rituals that includes the one thing early D&D sort of managed well.

That's not to say that it is some sort of horrible system, merely that it clashes with what I value in a system. I value mechanical elegance, it lacks it. I value good non-combat mechanics, it lacks them. I consider crunch something to be avoided if possible, it has too much of it. Looked at from this perspective, it's a mess. However, that leaves a great many games that are far worse, with 4e having a comfortable distance from the bottom of the barrel (granted, part of that is RaHoWa and FATAL seeing that the barrel is very, very deep).

The short version: 4e suffers because it is D&D, and D&D has had a lot of flaws from the beginning. The excuses for said flaws (e.g. the absence of any material to work with) have long since dried up.

[Scowling Dragon]

Hey, now. Don't be an ass. He's just asking an honest question.

I didn't mean to be. These things just devolve into war flames so much that it realy IS not worth it.

[tcrudisi]

I'm going to go a different tact. I started with 1e, went to 2e, then 3e, then 4e. Each time, I swore I wouldn't change. Then ... I tried it. And after a while, it grew on me. Now I can't go back to any of the older editions. They just don't appeal to me any more, for various reasons. Each edition has improved as far as I'm concerned.

I have a lot of friends that still play 3.5/Pathfinder. Some play 4e as well. The ones that only play 3.5 rarely give me a valid reason for disliking 4e. They'll throw the tropes out there that it's "like WoW" or "not enough roleplaying." In that regards, I think it's a failure of the DM and not the system. Heck, you can play GURPS as all combat, too. That's not a failure of the system if you do it that way, it's a failure of the DM.

So, to that end, my answer to your question is this:

People hate 4e because it's fashionable to do so. There are still old-timers who love AD&D and won't change. If the internet had been around back then, they would have been far more vocal about it. It just so happens that 3.x coincided with the internet boom. So when 4e came out, when some people didn't switch, it became a thing. It became known. Suddenly, it's easier for people to stay with 3.5 just because there's an easier way of contacting other like-minded individuals.

I believe you will see the same thing happen when 5e comes out. A large portion of the players will stick to 4e and complain about 4e. The 3.5 players will probably also complain about 5e. Then you'll hear the same things, only about 5e. "There's no roleplaying" or "it feels too much like a 3.5 vs. 4e thread war." The usual complaints that you hear now. There's no pleasing everyone and with the advent of the internet, everyone can make their opinions well-known and still find like-minded individuals who share those views.

If you take away the internet, I bet there's only a small fraction of 3.5 players left. It would be too hard for them to find games and fellow players. Back in the past, you had to move to the new system if you wanted to keep playing. The internet made it to where that was no longer necessary.

So I don't think that it's anything with the system, per se. I think it's mass media.

Anyway, if you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to PM me. I won't check this thread again for the sake of my sanity. It /will/ devolve into a 3.5 vs 4e thing and it will just make me want to pull out my hair. Good luck.

[Cleavon]

Please note I (for the most part) don't agree with these complaints, so 4E defenders please keep this in mind before the flames come in. But here are the most common (constructive) complaints I've seen about it:

1. Every class uses the same subsystem for its powers, the AEDU system (At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility). There are a few tiny variations (like the Wizard's spellbook) but these aren't enough: Compared to 3.5 where there were all sorts of different ways a classes abilities could work like Vancian, Maneuvers, Incarnum, etc. Playing a Warlock felt very different from playing a Warblade in 3.5, and this has been lost in 4E.

2. The multiclassing system, even with the addition of hybrids, is extremely restrictive compared to what 3.5 allowed. One thing you could do in 3.5 is have a character who transforms over time: A barbarian who has a sudden divine revelation and becomes a cleric, a Barbarian 5 / Cleric 15. 4E's multiclassing/hybridizing doesn't really support this, it has to be kept purely in your character's fluff. The reinforcement of a character through game mechanics is a powerful thing, and this is part of a class system's purpose.

3. 4E has a "padded sumo" effect. Especially at higher levels, it takes tons of rounds to take anything down because hit points are so high relative to damage.

4. Classes have few truly unique powers, with many powers simply being slight edits of one another. This, combined with problem 1, is the reason behind the "samey" feel of 4E games.

5. Skill challenges. Instead of solving a noncombat encounter by, you know, being creative and having fun, you just roll X times and see what numbers came up.

6. Many people don't like the idea of magic items being common things that every character is decorated head to toe with (The "Christmas Tree" effect). 4E exacerbated this problem by making magic items more necessary for characters to function properly than ever.

7. While 3.5 relied on distances somewhat, 4E's new tactical combat made playing without a battle map next to impossible. Many attributed this to WotC just trying to sell more miniatures.

This pretty much explains it. Well, it explained the reasons that I would have typed up.

Personally, I like Pathfinder. To each their own though.

*EDIT* I didn't see this gem. Gotta comment on this.

People hate 4e because it's fashionable to do so. There are still old-timers who love AD&D and won't change. If the internet had been around back then, they would have been far more vocal about it. It just so happens that 3.x coincided with the internet boom. So when 4e came out, when some people didn't switch, it became a thing. It became known. Suddenly, it's easier for people to stay with 3.5 just because there's an easier way of contacting other like-minded individuals.

I believe you will see the same thing happen when 5e comes out. A large portion of the players will stick to 4e and complain about 4e. The 3.5 players will probably also complain about 5e. Then you'll hear the same things, only about 5e. "There's no roleplaying" or "it feels too much like a 3.5 vs. 4e thread war." The usual complaints that you hear now. There's no pleasing everyone and with the advent of the internet, everyone can make their opinions well-known and still find like-minded individuals who share those views.

If you take away the internet, I bet there's only a small fraction of 3.5 players left. It would be too hard for them to find games and fellow players. Back in the past, you had to move to the new system if you wanted to keep playing. The internet made it to where that was no longer necessary.

So I don't think that it's anything with the system, per se. I think it's mass media.

People hate 4e because it is fashionable to do so, and the internet is the only thing keeping 3.5E and other editions alive.

I LOVE when someone speaks out their posterior.

Do I think some people hate on 4E for that reason? Of course!

On the other hand, say that the entire "4E is garbage" movement boils down to just a "fashionable hatred" is ludicrous.

I don't hate it exactly, but it is certainly not the edition for me, as described in the post I quoted first.

I guess some people really like to keep the ball rolling though. Then leave the thread...

[missmvicious]

There are four big reasons I loath 4th edition.

The first being learning more rules. I just only want to dedicate so much of my brain power to D&D and 3.5 was here first.

Secondly keeping the rules straight, they are really close to 3.5 in name for a lot of rules but they are different enough to frustrate me.

Thirdly is my first DM was really really terrible in 4e and it left a god awful taste in my mouth I can't get rid of.

Lastly the lack of rules, by having a rule for 3.5 it cuts back on the waiting I have to do for my DM because I can tell what RAW dictates in like every possible situation. And its easier to tell if your DM is being a prick if he is breaking rules to do it. In 4e DMs have a lot more power but not the experience with the rules to judge fairly.


Also I have a hard time reading the books. No idea why its harder to follow for me, but I can barely get any of the 4e to stick.

I am playing in a 4e campaign IRL right now and its not 100% awful but I am often frustrated so I am not won over yet.

[Killer Angel]

The ones that only play 3.5 rarely give me a valid reason for disliking 4e. They'll throw the tropes out there that it's "like WoW" or "not enough roleplaying." In that regards, I think it's a failure of the DM and not the system. Heck, you can play GURPS as all combat, too. That's not a failure of the system if you do it that way, it's a failure of the DM.

While there's undeniably some truth in this, I would say that the game system can improve or decrease the motivations (?) behind roleplay.
GURPS got disadvantages and quirks that (at least in the old editions) are explicitly required to be "played" or removed.
If a game system, for the monsters, presents a simple stat block for combat, it gives minimal depth to them, representing the critters as a mere sack of xp. On the other side, you have AD&D monster's manual, that comes with a page, for every monster, with ecology, habitat, and so on.
The style of play indeed is in the hands of the DM and the players, but the system can give more or less tools for the task.

[Scots Dragon]

It boils down to a few major reasons for me. And while one or two them, on their own, might not have ruined the whole thing for me, the simple amount of them all put together kind of kills the overall experience for me. And it's hard to figure out where to start, since it's very ubiquitous and covers many aspects of both the system and the settings based on it.

But I suppose I can start with the one thing that pissed me off the most.

The settings and storyline information.

Now, don't get me wrong, I can handle a lot in this area; in many cases I already have, as I wasn't one of those who abandoned Star Wars when the prequels hit, and I actually stuck it out with Heroes until it inevitably got cancelled (both against my own better judgement, I must admit). But I can't think of a single area outside of maybe Dark Sun that 4th edition didn't whip out a hatchet for and start hacking away at. Proceeding to strip away just about everything that made it tick or made it unique, and leave it as an empty, hollow shell containing nothing more than an echoing void. Or to insert needless concepts that either did not need to be there or changed what already was. Or at least that's what it felt like.

And even in this area, I'm not sure where to start, but I think I'll start off with one of my favourite settings from 2nd edition. Planescape.

A setting whose status and iconic aspects were mostly ridiculed, though not mentioned by name, in many of the pre-release documents. Statements and titles like 'the great wheel is dead' and ridiculing the now-absent aasimar for their name were pretty much at the top of that list. One of the little essays in the pre-release documents went on about how the great wheel was basically a stupid idea and had little planes and concepts for every one of the alignments to create a sort of 'needless symmetry'. So one of the two major settings that helped to define my interest for Dungeons & Dragons was basically outright annihilated by the simple fact of the designers not caring for it.

And then we had the needless changes to the Forgotten Realms. Many people have already ranted at length about the Spellplague, the removal or killing off of most of the deities, revisions to the way in which many of the races worked, shoehorning in of 4th edition classes and concepts, and a very irritating time skip.

I also have additional problems with the mechanics (many of which have been raised already), but to me... it's all very forgivable if I can enjoy the story and the setting. However, I couldn't do that with 4th edition. It changed far too much of what I liked, and didn't leave enough for me to enjoy what was left.

[Partysan]

Simple. The people who liked 3.5 (myself included) had a game with a lot of flaws that they still liked very much and they expected a new edition to correct those flaws so the game they knew would come closer to perfection. Instead, 4E made a 180° turn and did the opposite in many areas than 3.5 did. Because of that, people felt estranged from their game and reacted defensively.
A lot of what made people like 3.5 was completely lost in 4E. 3.5 had an extensive library of features, feats and abilities which rewarded system knowledge and inspired a huge array of varying character builds and ideas. In fact, I myself almost consider the building in 3.5 more fun than the actual playing. Of course this also means you have to work for the build, which is bad for beginners who will easily make very weak characters, balance was a mess generally. 4E achieved balance, but they did it by making character builds extremely rigid. Thus, the people who liked delving into the books and building characters in detail felt patronized and called the game "dumbed down" (which, in a way, it is).
The video game aspect mostly comes from all character abilities being made into "powers" with specific cooldowns. There is no just normal "attack" anymore, people just have a "weapon attack" power. It's a flavour thing for the most part, but a significant one if you will.
The "roleplay" thing stems from the power system as well, to a degree, since the specific powers basically disallow anything the character does not have a power for (a problem that also crept into 3.5 by making many things into feats, implicitly disallowing it without the feat, but it's worse in 4E). The second roleplay impediment is 4E's increased reliance on miniatures. Many people didn't actually play with minis all the time and with 4E this becomes pretty much impossible, letting people feel "milked" since they're supposed to buy the minis and also going more in the direction of a tactical wargame again instead of an RPG system.
Now, D&D did evolve from tactical wargames, mind you, but D&D was never a game where the mechanics really helped the roleplaying. In most cases it was impeded by the rules, and some people feel that aspect is even worse in 4E, butthis is a contested topic so I guess I'll leave it with the reasons I listed.

[Ashtagon]

For me, the biggest fault with 4e is that you simply cannot play the kind of game I like to play with it. I enjoy semi-realism, where your life is on the line in a fight. This was possibly in all editions up to and include 3.x. But in 4e, even a 1st level character can expect to take on a few orc mooks and live to tell the tale.

Other issues...

* Healing surges. You can only fluff it as "I caught my breath" so many times.
* Minions. They make more sense by being CR-5 (or whatever number) than by having specific mechanical limitations.
* Boring Mechanics. Everyone on the at-will/encounter/daily system.
* Grid Combat. I don't like having to use a grid.
* No Progression. Higher levels are just more of the same with bigger numbers. In 1e, and especially in BECMI, there was an assumption written into the rules that you would gradually shift the campaign from armed hobos to founding empires and establishing a legacy. Sure, you can do that in 4e, but the rules don't encourage it.

Of course, for the kind of game I suspect it was made for (fantasy medieval superheroes), it seems to work well.

[Feytalist]

I personally dislike 4e for what it did to the Forgotten Realms campaign setting. That's about it.

Truth be told, the two 4e games I played weren't all that bad. It helps if you think of it as a totally different game. You don't expect Vampire the Requiem to feel like D&D, so you shouldn't expect 4e to feel like 3.5/PF. The main complaint I have is that all my 4e games felt so... samey. All the sessions felt all the same. Do the same thing over and over. Whether that was a result of the system itself or the DM I wouldn't be able to say.

[JadePhoenix]

If you take away the internet, I bet there's only a small fraction of 3.5 players left.

You do know Pathfinder sells more than 4e, right?

[Grac]

Others have said the reasons why people hate 4E now. But back when it came out? Ahh, things were different.

When it first came out, people hated it, and much more than now, but the reasons were different: first up is the simple fact that WotC denied they would be bringing out a new edition for a couple of years and went on a minor propaganda campaign to that end, but within two weeks it was leaked they had been in development for something like 5 months, and we're close to publishing.
There was also the stuff with the horrible adds deriding former editions, and portraying the players of previous editions (including 3/3.5) as idiot nerds.

The rules they hinted at? Most people loved them (though it is important to note that they were saying that 4e would be essentially a fantasy version of Star Wars SAGA Edition, which would have been the most awesome thing ever, but you know...). So yeah, there were high expectations, but the main motivator of hate at the time was the way they treated the fanbase.

[pasko77]

People hate 4e because it's fashionable to do so.

Wow, that's incredibly patronizing and plain wrong.
I was enthusiast of the new version and appalled when I first read the PHB.

So, no, it wasn't for fashion.

[Partysan]

Didn't see that the thread existed twice, so here's my answer from the empty twin:

The people who liked 3.5 (myself included) had a game with a lot of flaws that they still liked very much and they expected a new edition to correct those flaws so the game they knew would come closer to perfection. Instead, 4E made a 180° turn and did the opposite in many areas than 3.5 did. Because of that, people felt estranged from their game and reacted defensively.
A lot of what made people like 3.5 was completely lost in 4E. 3.5 had an extensive library of features, feats and abilities which rewarded system knowledge and inspired a huge array of varying character builds and ideas. In fact, I myself almost consider the building in 3.5 more fun than the actual playing. Of course this also means you have to work for the build, which is bad for beginners who will easily make very weak characters, balance was a mess generally. 4E achieved balance, but they did it by making character builds extremely rigid. Thus, the people who liked delving into the books and building characters in detail felt patronized and called the game "dumbed down" (which, in a way, it is).
The video game aspect mostly comes from all character abilities being made into "powers" with specific cooldowns. There is no just normal "attack" anymore, people just have a "weapon attack" power. It's a flavour thing for the most part, but a significant one if you will.
The "roleplay" thing stems from the power system as well, to a degree, since the specific powers basically disallow anything the character does not have a power for (a problem that also crept into 3.5 by making many things into feats, implicitly disallowing it without the feat, but it's worse in 4E). The second roleplay impediment is 4E's increased reliance on miniatures. Many people didn't actually play with minis all the time and with 4E this becomes pretty much impossible, letting people feel "milked" since they're supposed to buy the minis and also going more in the direction of a tactical wargame again instead of an RPG system.
Now, D&D did evolve from tactical wargames, mind you, but D&D was never a game where the mechanics really helped the roleplaying. In most cases it was impeded by the rules, and some people feel that aspect is even worse in 4E, but this is a contested topic so I guess I'll leave it with the reasons I listed.

[Rhaegar14]

It's generally the system's versatility, I've found. Let's take everybody's favorite (or most hated) Drow Ranger, Drizzt Do'Urden, for example. Drizzt is a Drow Ranger who dual-wields scimitars and is heavily implied (based on description) to use Dexterity as his primary ability score.

In 3.5e, I can make Drizzt work as he's meant to in the books with a Swift Hunter Ranger. I have to jump through hoops to get him to be reasonably competent, but I can make it happen. In 4e, I literally CAN'T make a Ranger-type character (as in the fantasy archetype, not necessarily the class) that dual-wields scimitars and runs off Dexterity, and I can't even get him to dual-wield scimitars if I want him to have his panther.

For a more extreme example, let's look at his rival, the assassin Artemis Entreri. Entreri is a Dexterity-based character who wields a dagger in his main hand and a sword in his off-hand, and is also an extremely skilled assassin and rogue. In 4e, I can't get a Dex-based dual wielder for sword-and-dagger with Entreri's skillset EVEN A LITTLE BIT. It just doesn't work.

These examples are excluding use of the horribly-gimped Essentials classes (some of them work, but the one that would help here, Scout, is really, really bad when compared to standard Ranger). 4e's customizability has gotten better, as is to be expected, as more and more splat has come out, but at the end of the day it's simply not as versatile a system as 3.5e.

[Craft (Cheese)]

People hate 4e because it is fashionable to do so, and the internet is the only thing keeping 3.5E and other editions alive.

I LOVE when someone speaks out their posterior.

Do I think some people hate on 4E for that reason? Of course!

On the other hand, say that the entire "4E is garbage" movement boils down to just a "fashionable hatred" is ludicrous.

I don't hate it exactly, but it is certainly not the edition for me, as described in the post I quoted first.

I guess some people really like to keep the ball rolling though. Then leave the thread...

While I definitely wouldn't agree that the internet is the only thing keeping 4E alive, I think there's a tangible effect.


Imagine you're a newbie player just getting into this big scary Tabletop thing. You're curious about this "D&D 4E" thingy so you decide to go on the internet and see what other people have to say about it.

Instantly, you encounter a tidal wave, a chorus of "4E is WoW with the servers down" and "Pathfinder r0xx0rz." After reading all of this, are you going to be as enthusiastic as you were before about getting into 4E, or are you going to be swayed by all the seething hate toward it you see around?


The question is, how many of these new players go to 3.5/Pathfinder instead of 4E, because of the hatebase against 4E? I'm willing to bet it's not insignificant.

[Jimbob]

For me it was to soon after 3.5 was released and with every book they had printed I wanted to try and use as much of it as possible before I moved over to 4e.
But funnily enough we as a group, had taken the dive into 4e a week before 5e was announced and now we are saying excatly the same as we are loving 4e.

But im sure I will still end up buying the core books when they come out and let them collect dust for a few years till I get round and reading them.

[Reaper_Monkey]

Because I found GURPS and realised I could make a better game myself, so did. Technically this was still during 3.5ed with early whispers of 4e (but enough whispers to get a general idea of where it was heading), but sure enough when 4e hit it really couldn't contend in any way and so failed to win me over.

[Shivore]

Well I only just recently got into tabletop RPGs so I like to think I was able to look at the different editions without the bias that a lot of people cannot help to bring to the table. Although this also means I haven't got any hands-on experience with the different editions.

So when I was deciding what version to learn I did research and what I found seemed to be that, in short... 4E is actually a decent game. Not a bad RPG. But it is not D&D. It doesn't feel like D&D, as a previous poster mentioned 4E feels like a game of medieval super-heroes instead of a more D&D esque team of "armed hobos" growing towards "founding empires and establishing a legacy".

I particularly have to second the bit about level 1 players being so powerful. I watched the Robot Chicken D&D game and I didn't realize they were level 1 characters until near the end... I was SHOCKED! In my mind level 1's should not have been able to overcome those obstacles so easily.

Seemed to me 4E would be fun to play. But for my preference, I just decided PF would be even more fun.

[kaomera]

Quite a lot of people manage to not like / not play 4e without it becoming a big deal. I think where the hate comes in is:

1) Someone describes why they do not enjoy system X; this is an entirely subjective distinction, so others who do enjoy system X will disagree and may find it unfair (and sometimes it is unfair).

2) There are a finite number of players and DMs out there, and so differing preferences may make it more difficult to get the game you want; some players may even end up joining a game they don't want to be in...

3) There is a finite amount of support out there - even with PF you've split things up; some players are going to be resentful that material they otherwise would have liked is aimed at a system they don't.