Things you dislike about 4th edition.

[Indon]

Inspired by Lupy's thread about compiling features people like about 4'th edition, I felt that we should compile a list of specific features people dislike about the upcoming 4'th edition of D&D.

Please note that this is not a "Positive vs. Negative features" thread. Restrict debate, merely list the specific things you dislike about 4'th edition, and please limit your comments on what other people dislike about it (specifically, if they will inevitably lead to debate).

And even if you largely like 4'th edition, if there's a change you particularly dislike, you could list it here. Note that if there's a feature you don't like and you intend on houseruling it away, it counts (Personally, I intend on houseruling everything I don't like away, whenever possible, should I decide to play 4'th edition).

This thread is created in the hopes of finding common changes which seem unpopular, and looking for common elements why people don't like said changes.

That said, this is what I particularly dislike about 4'th edition:

-The changing of everyone to the same per round/encounter/day "power" model seems to me to be mechanically uninteresting, removing much of the variety that I feel a class-based system should offer.
-I dislike the possibility that different players will now no longer have significant differences in to-hit or saves (judging from SAGA edition, and the 4'th ed Rogue article), because it renders the system even more generic, and removes character strengths and weaknesses which could make combat and other situations more interesting.
-I dislike that they seem to be getting rid of Wish, and I wish they'd have instead treated it like they're treating ressurection spells, by restricting a system with great potential rather than scrapping it.
-I dislike the reduction in the importance of alignment. I liked the strong mystical and moral backdrop that the alignment system could give, and as such this change saddens me.
-I dislike the removal of iterative attacks as being a removal of an iconic D&D combatant capability.
-I dislike the removal of the copper dragon, rather than the bronze dragon, simply because I consider copper/silver/gold to be more iconic of metallic dragons than bronze/silver/gold (not a very major complaint).

[Ganurath]

...They bumped out half-orcs. That's all I need.

[KindaChang]

I'm going to go with everything you just listed, and include some of my own:


-Removal of gnomes from the PHB. Wtf?
-Addition of tieflings to the PHB. Didn't we have enough options for whiney doesn't fit in characters with half-elves alone?
-Removal of racial penalties to ability scores. *sigh* It almost feels like they don't want there to be challenges.

[Maerok]

They removed a dragon? Why?!?! My favorite poster is one of all ten (basic) kinds of dragons. They probably wanted a Bronze, Silver, Gold theme as with medals... which is superficial. Copper would fit in better as it coincides with the money system, unless they have sinister plans to bastardize that as well.

[Starbuck_II]

Restrict debate, merely list the specific things you dislike about 4'th edition, and please limit your comments on what other people dislike about it (specifically, if they will inevitably lead to debate).

Wait, how do one limit commenting if will cause debates? How are we to know?

-I dislike the possibility that different players will now no longer have significant differences in to-hit or saves (judging from SAGA edition, and the 4'th ed Rogue article), because it renders the system even more generic, and removes character strengths and weaknesses which could make combat and other situations more interesting.

You haven't played Saga that much, no?

There are to hit/save differences.
I found this out when I last played, but anyway, I don't mind if there was.

-I dislike the reduction in the importance of alignment. I liked the strong mystical and moral backdrop that the alignment system could give, and as such this change saddens me.

Alignment causes too much debate.

I dislike that con mod isn't added to every level: I know we get to add Con Score at 1st, but I like the adding of Con mod.
I'm sure there are balances reasons, but I like big numbers.

I wish they didn't change Psionics to be restricted to certain things. I perfer the 3.5 Version of Psionics.

It was fun and balanced.
I just don't want them taking away my energy powers and giving them only to wizards.

[holywhippet]

I'll wait to judge it as a whole rather than based on what has been revealed. It's unfair to compare it piecemeal as you are basically comparing it to the current system(s). That isn't fair or entirely relevant as the new edition is intended to have it's own new checks and balances.

If I was chosing a dislike I'd say I dislike PCs not getting a CON bonus to HP on level up (or at least the rogue doesn't). That heavily reduces the usefulness of CON.

[DementedFellow]

My beef with it (from what I've read and understood, so I could be reading it wrong) is that the Paragon Paths are just given to the players at level 10 (or was it 11?). These Paragon Paths are supposed to replace PrCs, but from what I've read their isn't even the illusion of being "specialized enough" to be in a PrC. From what I understood (which is again may be wrong) there will be a list of stuff you can be at such-and-such level, whereas with a PrC, you have to devote x number of ranks and take x feat(s) in order to gain access to this higher power. In my opinion, PrCs at least give the illusion of "okay, he is good enough to do that." I haven't read any such thing about the Paragon Paths.

[Scintillatus]

Lack of Bards is unacceptable in the extreme.

I will never forgive you, Pointy-Hatted Old Gits from the Seaside!

[Overlard]

That it provokes complaints about tidbits of information without any real context.

[Indon]

Wait, how do one limit commenting if will cause debates? How are we to know?

Example -

I don't like this change because of suchandsuch.

Well, I like it, and have a different reason to like it.

You haven't played Saga that much, no?

All classes have the same BAB, right? And judging from the Rogue article, a Rogue has a Reflex save 2 higher than average, and that's it. I do not feel that to be significant.

Alignment causes too much debate.

I think debate can be good. But preferably not in this thread.

[horseboy]

Hmm, well if I have to complain about something, I'd go with the skill system and their maintaining D&D as a hack and slash game.

[Matthew]

Iterative Attacks? Good riddance! They were just an artefact of D20. Seriously, though, whilst the value of that mechanic is no doubt subjective, it can hardly be called iconic.

[Starbuck_II]

All classes have the same BAB, right? And judging from the Rogue article, a Rogue has a Reflex save 2 higher than average, and that's it. I do not feel that to be significant.

Nope. They just dropped 1/2 BAB for Heroics.

Soldier/Jedi = Full
Scout/Scoundrel/Noble = 3/4th.

Non-Heroics are 1/2.

Back on topic, I wish Bards were in the PHB 1.

[Newtkeeper]

1) The destruction of the fluff. Even I couldn't summon enough hubris to completely remake Faerun. Ditto the Great Wheel.
2) 'Evil fighting evil will be made less of an issue'. Isn't that part of what distinguishes Evil from Good? And, besides bands of unlikely heroes, Good's only advantage?
3) 'It's all about the PCs' mentality. Yes, the PCs are the reason the game exists. No, that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to make the things they probably won't see. The great cathedrals were adorned with statues placed so high that only God could see them.
4) The gnomes and the teiflings and the bard. The less said about that decision, the better.

I have no doubt 4e will succeed at attracting its target audience. I just don't feel I'm a part of that audience anymore. And really, I'm no old-school gamer. 3.5 was my first RPG (GURPS was my second, but that's another story)! Of course, that may be part of the reason I feel this way...

[longtooth878]

It seems to me that they are changing stuff that was iconic in DND just for the sake of change. Getting rid of certain dragons, races and the way wizard cast spells, giving every class a way to heal. It is like they are gutting it like a fish and replacing it with number 2 and saying its better because its new. It was the same thing with Champions (a super hero RPG) they had a loyal fan base and they went to a "new" system and it tanked. I am not saying that things don't need to change, but they should fix the things that need to be fixed and update the system not replace it. I have lived through 3 editions and this to will pass if they survive, does anyone remember Traveler, Twilight 2000. All I know I was in trouble when I took the test to be one of the play testers and had stuff from non-DND (but WOTC) products on it. Sorry for the rant but I was holding it in for awhile.

[Lupy]

Inspired by Lupy's thread about compiling features people like about 4'th edition, I felt that we should compile a list of specific features people dislike about the upcoming 4'th edition of D&D.

Good idea.

Why! Why! My bard! My beloved Bard! *and lupy wept*

[Guildorn Tanaleth]

I dislike how people are constantly debating its features while barely knowing anything about it. I also dislike the erroneous use of "4'th" instead of "4th."

[Mkhaiwati]

Style issues

Specifically, the "I can do it in 30 levels in the time for you to go 20 levels" mentality. This style of play is also evidenced in the strikes that do healing to the party, per encounter abilities, and much more. It isn't a style I want to play.

[Roderick_BR]

I dislike that they took out gnomes and several base classes won't be on the 1st PHB.
Hmm... I got nothing more.
The by encounter/by day mechanics... I'll have to see.
I don't see removal of Wish as something so bad. I *think* vancian casting will be removed or lessened, so you don't need a spell that can replace others. Plus, most of the things you were supposed to do with it will (hopefully) be handled by others spells.
I don't think that iterative attacks are so iconic (I started playing AD&D, only the fighter, ranger and paladin gained up to 2 or 3 attacks every 2 rounds).
Actually, if the characters get less dependent on full attacks (that doesn't come often), it'll be better.

[Talya]

It seems to me that they are changing stuff that was iconic in DND just for the sake of change.

Indeed. Change for change sake alone is not good. They're "fixing" some stuff that was never broken.

[SadisticFishing]

Golden. Wyvern. Adept.

I stronly dislike forced fluff for no reason. It's perfectly acceptable for the Eye of Gruumsh to have fluff, or for the Purple Dragon Champion. But for a simple Wizard? Chameleon is one of the only examples I can think of in 3.5, of something that has useless fluff for no reason whatsoever. What if I don't want to be an assassin, but want to be versatile? Grumble, grumble.

The new schools of magic are my main problem, my wizard should be a Conjurer or Illusionist, not a... Iron Sigilist, or Hidden Flame-guy-thing.

Grumble, grumble, boo hiss.

[Prophaniti]

Very much agree with everything Longtooth878 said up there, echoed by Talya. They're changing so much that doesn't need to be changed, and forcing a lot of fluff down our throats with their new mechanics. I have no issue whatsoever with things like changing the way crits work, or making hp gain per level a constant instead of random, or any of the purely mechanical changes to the system.

It's the things like tiefling changes, dropping gnomes and half-orcs/elves, dropping bards, adding new dragon colors and dropping old ones, giving everyone self-healing, changing the wizard schools... the list goes on and on.

Some of these things will be very difficult, if not impossible, to seperate from the core books so I can run the campaign world I want (complete with bards and gnome illusionists and half-orcs and no teiflings as a core race and...) with their very sensible and well-structured mechanics. That is why I'm fairly certain at this point that I won't upgrade to 4th until everyone in my group flatly refuses to play anything else. Instead, I'll just house-rule the mechanics I like into my already-existing-and-needs-no-tampering-thank-you-very-much campaign.

[RTGoodman]

It seems to me that they are changing stuff that was iconic in DND just for the sake of change. Getting rid of certain dragons...

I actually totally agree with that - really, who knows the difference off the top of their head between copper, bronze, and brass dragons? The replacements (Iron and Adamantine) are more distinctive and seem like common sense to me.

I'm generally all for 4E, but there are a few things I don't like:

-No ability penalties for races - that just seems weird to me.

-The loss of Half-Orcs - I'm okay with leaving Gnomes until later, but I loves me some Half-Orcs and they just cut them out in favor of deserty dragon-man. Really, how fanboyish can it get?

[Theodoxus]

Golden. Wyvern. Adept.

I stronly dislike forced fluff for no reason. It's perfectly acceptable for the Eye of Gruumsh to have fluff, or for the Purple Dragon Champion. But for a simple Wizard? Chameleon is one of the only examples I can think of in 3.5, of something that has useless fluff for no reason whatsoever. What if I don't want to be an assassin, but want to be versatile? Grumble, grumble.

The new schools of magic are my main problem, my wizard should be a Conjurer or Illusionist, not a... Iron Sigilist, or Hidden Flame-guy-thing.

Grumble, grumble, boo hiss.

My gaming group had a discussion along those lines... about Sepia Snake Sigil. I mean, how the heck am I supposed to know what that spell does? A brown snake symbol... hmm... using that as an example, I'm surprised fireball wasn't renamed 'Vermillian Sphere'.

3.5 has plenty of useless fluff, if you look close enough.

[puppyavenger]

Would someone please tell me where these dragon changes are listed also

Iron and Adamantine

So is the adamantiem dragon stronger than the iron? and iron doeesn't seem... chaotic to me. And aren't the good dragons supposed to be precsios metals, the evil colours and the nuetrel gems/other metals/elelments/mist/timeetc?

[Moff Chumley]

Style issues

Specifically, the "I can do it in 30 levels in the time for you to go 20 levels" mentality. This style of play is also evidenced in the strikes that do healing to the party, per encounter abilities, and much more. It isn't a style I want to play.

Per encounter abilities make sense. In karate, for instance, ther are plenty of things I can do only once per fight, such as feints, overly telegraphed (but not obvious) strikes, and most locks.

Stuff I don't like:
Tieflings and Dragonborn. Srsly. However, its really not to hard to say "Okay, Tieflings are Drow and Dragonborn are Lizardfolk." A little imagination goes a long way, people.

[EvilElitest]

Should i even comment on this thread? I would have a massive list
from
EE

[Istari]

The fact that they are trying to target a new MMORPG fanbase instead of keeping their former customers intrested.

[The Faceless]

My gaming group had a discussion along those lines... about Sepia Snake Sigil. I mean, how the heck am I supposed to know what that spell does? A brown snake symbol... hmm... using that as an example, I'm surprised fireball wasn't renamed 'Vermillian Sphere'.

3.5 has plenty of useless fluff, if you look close enough.

But alliteration! Granted, it could have been called Snake Glyph Trap, but where's your sense of wonder and poetry?

Also, on what i don't like: They removed wish? Wow, they really are dumbing it down for the plebs.

[SadisticFishing]

My gaming group had a discussion along those lines... about Sepia Snake Sigil. I mean, how the heck am I supposed to know what that spell does? A brown snake symbol... hmm... using that as an example, I'm surprised fireball wasn't renamed 'Vermillian Sphere'.

3.5 has plenty of useless fluff, if you look close enough.

Honestly, that's actually different. Vancian casting dictates that someone has to discover every spell, and then name it.