4th ed feels dumbed down

[infinitypanda]

Ok, before the flames start, let me just say that I only had about 5 minutes to look over the new rule books, so I gravitated towards the character creation rules. And frankly, it felt a bit dumbed down. Only 8 classes. The only alignments are lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil. Does anyone who has read more have anything to say about this? Is it like this for the rest of the rules, or does it get better?

[Jack Zander]

Coming from a 4th Edition "Hater" as they call me, I have to say that while the system does feel "dumbed down" a better word would probably be streamlined. It's supposed to be real quick and easy to get into so that everything moves much faster (no more 4 hour character creations). This is great for new players, but it hurts the veterens who may want more options to work with.

[Skyserpent]

Coming from a 4th Edition "Hater" as they call me, I have to say that while the system does feel "dumbed down" a better word would probably be streamlined. It's supposed to be real quick and easy to get into so that everything moves much faster (no more 4 hour character creations). This is great for new players, but it hurts the veterens who may want more options to work with.

As a 4e "fanboy" this guy is right.

The system moves faster and has fewer options for classes that had millions in 3.5 and more options for classes that had like none... There may be just 8 classes, but they expand as the game moves on into a SILLY number of Paragon paths and well... 4 Epic Destinies, but hey, that's what splatbooks are for.

The whole thing is, once again, streamlined and simpler. However if you're the guy who likes leafing through five sourcebooks searching for that exact specific spell that's better than any other, 4e isn't for you.

Essentially there's a focus on balance, and enforced balance has a way of feeling unfair for those who excel.

[Xyk]

The only alignments are lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

What??? I don't have the books. That's ridiculous, if i get the books, I would houserule all nine.

[infinitypanda]

Well, the part I didn't like was how you (as far as I know) can't be chaotic good or lawful evil without dm approval now. Just stuff like that, you know?

[Skyserpent]

What??? I don't have the books. That's ridiculous, if i get the books, I would houserule all nine.

haha, the alignments have somewhat more significant abilities and they don't have the same meaning as they did in 3.5

A lot of people wanted to get RID of the alignment system.

I guess this is a balance that pleases nobody... go figure. Scrap it, keep it, honestly this isn't that big a deal... You can roleplay whatever you want without having to go through 27 page long alignment debates anymore...

thank GOD.

[Rutee]

I don't think the alignments really made matters 'complex'.

As to 'too few classes'.. well, yes. That's the core book. If you really want your splatbook spam, it will inevitably come and make the game have as crazy many options as 3rd ed. Yay.

[Skyserpent]

Well, the part I didn't like was how you (as far as I know) can't be chaotic good or lawful evil without dm approval now. Just stuff like that, you know?

Yes you CAN. You just don't have to CALL yourself Chaotic good or Lawful Evil, you can be... you know, a Rebel or a Tyrant, be a CHARACTER not a listing on a sheet... jeez...

[Tyger]

Well, considering that the definition of Good in the 4e PHB is almost exactly what Chaotic Good used to be (ditto Evil is LE) its a pretty small issue. Especially when you factor in the one rule that everyone seems to forget... you can do whatever your group agrees to. Want 5 alignments? 9? 140? Sure, go for it.

We haven't used alignement in about 5 years. So I didn't even read that part of the book.

[FlyMolo]

4e streamlined, but less flexible than 3e.

3e clunky in places, but I'll be damned if you can't do whatever.

[Bleen]

I preferred the old alignment system, honestly. It was actually pretty fun doing all that debating and such, and it had a bit more flexibility than this one...

If I can't get all nine houseruled in, then I'll find a way to convert it to a system that emphasizes the ethical axis instead of the moral one, dangit! That one was more interesting! Cuuurrsseee youuuuu wizzarrrdssss. YOUR BLACK AND WHITE MORALITY SYSTEM SHALL BE YOUR UNDOINGGGGGG!

also I think there were plenty of classes and options for those classes

There's only like two less than the old PHB and the new ones have a lot more build options core-wise.

[Rutee]

4e streamlined, but less flexible than 3e.

3e clunky in places, but I'll be damned if you can't do whatever.

Useful Dextrous Fighter, with a GM who hates the ToB. Please don't make it so easy.

[Sir_Dr_D]

I would not say the alignment system is dumbed down. The previous version had an alignment system that was disguised as smart, but has problems as you dig deeper into it. This alignment system makes a lot more sense, and has fewer conflicts. There is 8 classes only right now, but that is because that is all that could fit in one book. Plus they are being very carefully about balancing classes, so they are making sure they are not released too fast There will be a lot more classes later.

But Yes, 4E is 'dumb-downed' in many ways, just not because of the reasons you mentioned. Less thouhg tneeds to be put into creating characters, which will be good for some people, but not for those who like optimizing.But note that while 3E has more thinking involved in creating chracters, 4E has a much more tactical combat system.

Essentially it does seem like 3E, and 4E were created with completely different target audiences in mind.

[Ozymandias]

4e streamlined, but less flexible than 3e.

3e clunky in places, but I'll be damned if you can't do whatever.

The issue I have with this view (and it's all a matter of opinion, of course) is that there are many more systems that can "do whatever" with more ease and elegance, either through being tailored to different interests (WoD, BESM, etc) or sheer versatility (GURPS). DnD (or 3.X, at least) has always been sort of between the two, and that made it sort of weird and almost turgid.

[Bleen]

Meh, for me it's not "dumbed down", it's just that they shifted the focus more towards the alignment continuum that I don't really care for.

[Tyger]

But Yes, 4E is 'dumb-downed' in many ways, just not because of the reasons you mentioned. Less thouhg tneeds to be put into creating characters, which will be good for some people, but not for those who like optimizing.But note that while 3E has more thinking involved in creating chracters, 4E has a much more tactical combat system.

Except that 99% of all optimization currently (i.e. 3.5) is not limited to the CORE classes. So that's an all but impossible measuring stick at this time. Wait until we have 30 splatbooks, and my bet is you'll have just as many Fighter 2 / Wizard 3 / Knight of the Spoon 2 / Eldritch Bizilbaffer 3 (but only for their daily power!) / Champion of Onion 2 / Red Lounger 4 / Cream Totem Barbarian 5 builds as we see today.

But you are accurate on your assessment that 4e is more tactical. The positioning is going to be more and more important. I like it!

[Rutee]

But you are accurate on your assessment that 4e is more tactical. The positioning is going to be more and more important. I like it!

I kinda don't, to be honest. It's a bit annoying that we felt the need to pick up OpenRPG-like stuff.. It's not so much about using it, but feeling like we needed it.

[TheOOB]

4e has been dumbed down in the sense that it is no longer as complex to play and thus people who don't have quite the aptitude for role playing games can get a lot more enjoyment out of it.

That said, the game really hasn't lost any depth(in fact, it very well may have gained more). It's a common misconception that complexity equals depth, when in reality the opposite is usually true within reason. A simple system is actually more able to adapt to things outside of what it was designed for them a complex system, which allows the game to do more things.

I could personally take or leave the alignments. I haven't yet seen much of a mechanical effect of alignment. That said, aside from the names, this alignment system makes more sense. A good person is someone who does good things, while a lawful good person is someone who actively works twords advancing the cause of good. An evil person is someone who does evil things, while a chaotic evil person actively tries to be evil.

As for the lack of classes, keep a few things in mind:

1) Classes have way more going on then before. Each class has build options, dozens and dozens of powers for all levels, paragon paths, feats, the whole nine yards. This makes the classes much harder and longer to design, but also makes each class cover more ground as the classes can be adapted many ways by things such as power choice.

2) WotC wanted the first players handbook to have classes that clearly defined the core archtypes, defender, striker, controller, and leader. They want to set the rules for what those archtypes will be before they start to bend the rules a little.

3) Some classes, such as the bard, druid, and monk, will be much harder to design and make well balanced. Not only will they need more time to design them, they probably want some large scale play testing, by releasing the system, to help them make them right.

4) They need some stuff to make you buy future PHBs.

[SadisticFishing]

Useful Dextrous Fighter, with a GM who hates the ToB. Please don't make it so easy.

That's actually not that hard - it just takes some work. But "Useful dexterous fighter, not counting the book that makes dexterous fighters useful" isn't a very strong argument.

[Jack Zander]

Useful dextrous fighter? Play a rogue with improved feint and boost your AC as high as possible. You've got a fencer type that is great at taking on a single, powerful opponent as he can feint and combat expertise while not losing (and in fact usually gaining) accuracy.

Now if you wanted me to actually use a fighter, that's like asking for a wizard who specializes in hitting stuff. Sure, you can do it, but there are better ways to fill that concept.

[Rutee]

That's actually not that hard - it just takes some work. But "Useful dexterous fighter, not counting the book that makes dexterous fighters useful" isn't a very strong argument.

With all the ToB hate, it does. Not that I understand it, mind, but really, the vocal minority is loud enough that I can believe a decent portion of the folks who might look at it.. won't. But really? It's utterly impossible in Core, which is a strike against it right off the bat.

[Jayngfet]

Personally the "dumbing down" is my biggest turnoff. I liked the old system!

[Jack Zander]

With all the ToB hate, it does. Not that I understand it, mind, but really, the vocal minority is loud enough that I can believe a decent portion of the folks who might look at it.. won't. But really? It's utterly impossible in Core, which is a strike against it right off the bat.

See post above yours.

[Sir_Dr_D]

Tyger
You may be right. Once some $E splat books come out, it may start appealing the charcter optimizers. Right now in 4E it does seem like you are just given a charcter and there is no work that you have to do to make it good. I am not in that camp, and and am a big 4E fan. I am just trying to ook at things from the point of view of the other side.

[Bleen]

It's a bit annoying that we felt the need to pick up OpenRPG-like stuff..

My group wouldn't mind OpenRPG if it weren't such a fickle wench, constantly bugging out and disconnecting people and doing things that weren't in the documentation. Unfortunately, all the other options we've explored are really 'bleh.' It really does seem like 4e wants tactical grid combat more, given the "squares" measurement and lots of small incremental movements and positioning powers.

I'm not too particularly offended by this from a general viewpoint (In 3.5 I liked to have visual aides whenever possible anyway; especially when I had nutjob DM's who thought combat with 12 enemies was a sane thing to do with the systems,) it's just that it feels more inconvenient when I wanna play with my intarwebz friends.

[Tengu]

Only 8 classes.

8 base classes - only 3 less than in core 3.5. And much better designed and more distinct. And with 31 prestige classes.

[Irreverent Fool]

Useful Dextrous Fighter, with a GM who hates the ToB. Please don't make it so easy.

It's called a rogue.

Edit: Hm. It seems Jack beat me to the punch.

[Rutee]

It's called a rogue.

Rogues are sneaky, tricksy bastards. Nothing about "Dextrous" requires that.

[Kabump]

My group wouldn't mind OpenRPG if it weren't such a fickle wench, constantly bugging out and disconnecting people and doing things that weren't in the documentation. Unfortunately, all the other options we've explored are really 'bleh.' It really does seem like 4e wants tactical grid combat more, given the "squares" measurement and lots of small incremental movements and positioning powers.

I'm not too particularly offended by this from a general viewpoint (In 3.5 I liked to have visual aides whenever possible anyway; especially when I had nutjob DM's who thought combat with 12 enemies was a sane thing to do with the systems,) it's just that it feels more inconvenient when I wanna play with my intarwebz friends.

Not to familiar with OpenRPG, but I've used MapTool and it is much to my liking. YMMV. Just tossing out another option, you may have tried it already :)

[Vazzaroth]

First of all, the alignment has changed that much at all. At first, after reading today's excerpt, I was pissed. How dare they retain chaotic and lawful, but only limit them to good and evil! But then I saw it was just a name change. Good = chaotic good and Evil=lawful evil, almost 100%. They got rid of Neutral good and evil, which I think were sorta jokes anyway. I'm not saying I never played them, but in hindsight those are the alignments I'm most willing to nix.

* Good: Freedom and kindness.
* Lawful Good: Civilization and order.
* Evil: Tyranny and hatred.
* Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction.
* Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.

As far as the class thing... I was very sad at first as well. But then I realized that it's not much less than CORE 3.5, which is what we will have for 4E. I can't remember the last time I didn't take a prestige class from a supplement or at least a spell or feat or two. I wouldn't call myself an optimizer mechanically, but I like to take feats and spells that best fit into a character concept. (IE my sword and shield fighter with shield spells from PHB2, Weapon focus from core,Shield Block from Heroes of battle, and a smattering of Complete Warrior feats.)

Summary: Yes, it's dumbed down at first unless you've played with nothing but the 3 core books in 3.5. If you have, you will probably notice its simply diffrent, not lesser.

Either way, I still am guardedly excited. At will powers: Awesome. Turning DnD into a boardgame instead of an RPG: Not.