My beef with 4e

[Necron2.0]

Fundamentally, my biggest beef with 4e is that it's just not an improvement over 3.5. It's change, sure, but no actual improvement. It's just a paycheck for WotC.

That, and they've got their history wrong. First off, Arneson's D&D had nothing at all to do with Chainmail - Gygax's only real contribution to the first rev of D&D was as publisher. Second, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were NOT the first campaign settings. The first "official" setting was the world of Greyhawk. Even before that, however, there were the campaign settings of Judge's Guild (City State of the Invincible Overlord, Tarantia, etc.), plus a gob of independant home-brews.

I'm sure if you got down to playing it, and once you wrung out the bugs, 4e could be an enjoyable enough game. I just don't see it as a "must have."

[Feralgeist]

{Scrubbed}

[EvilElitest]

WELCOME TO THE HORDE OF WHINERS! IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, DONT PLAY

Ug, this is such a pathetic argument. I don't play FATAL, and i don't read Shreeded Moose, am i not allowed to criticize their flaws (through 4E isn't nearly as bad as ether of those but my point remains)

These threads are becoming as common as syphilis in a polygamist cult! ENOUGH!

And so are petty whining about people voicing their right to complain. Its immature and childish


OP, that is pretty much the case. 4E isn't like 3E to 2E, where it is considered a major upgrade (through i think 3E could do with more 2E elements) it is more like an entirly different game. Imagine 4E like a board game system loosely based upon D&D rules, because WotCs claims of still remaining D&D are nothing but BS, it is an entirely new system, and you critique is quite valid. There are a few improvements, but most of 4E is a step down on the evolutionary scale
from
EE

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Fundamentally, my biggest beef with 4e is that it's just not an improvement over 3.5. It's change, sure, but no actual improvement. It's just a paycheck for WotC.

That, and they've got their history wrong. First off, Arneson's D&D had nothing at all to do with Chainmail - Gygax's only real contribution to the first rev of D&D was as publisher. Second, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were NOT the first campaign settings. The first "official" setting was the world of Greyhawk. Even before that, however, there were the campaign settings of Judge's Guild (City State of the Invincible Overlord, Tarantia, etc.), plus a gob of independant home-brews.

I'm sure if you got down to playing it, and once you wrung out the bugs, 4e could be an enjoyable enough game. I just don't see it as a "must have."

They did seem to get a couple things wrong in that history. Not only that, they glossed over some of the down-and-dirty facts around the demise of TSR, but honestly this is a game system, not a tell-all book so I didn't need the later. (Though it still seemed a bit like "... then the TSR huggybears gave DnD to the WotC fluffybunnies and they had a tea party!")

Really, I like the game, but this history they give just furthers a complaint of mine: that WotC has passed this -- as others have worded it -- as the "spiritual successor" of D&Ds past.

[The New Bruceski]

OP, that is pretty much the case. 4E isn't like 3E to 2E, where it is considered a major upgrade (through i think 3E could do with more 2E elements) it is more like an entirly different game.

I recall much consternation in game stores when 3rd edition came out, complaints that they were disrupting the spirit of the game (one complaint I remember in particular was "They're removing all constraints of multiclassing," which makes it interesting that a major complaint now is that the reverse is happening.) In hindsight I agree that 3rd edition was an improvement, but that is a decision that, objectively, can only >be< made in hindsight. You are certainly welcome to your opinions, but treating them as fact does not make them any more universal than someone else declaring the opposite.

Imagine 4E like a board game system loosely based upon D&D rules, because WotCs claims of still remaining D&D are nothing but BS, it is an entirely new system, and you critique is quite valid.

So what is D&D, if you're sure this isn't it? When we hack away all embellishments, everything added in revisions, and everything that's been superfluous from the start, what can we hold up and say "This is Dungeons and Dragons, through and through."?

There are a few improvements, but most of 4E is a step down on the evolutionary scale
from
EE

Evolutionary changes are not "up" or "down." Changes from such a process know no "proper" direction, they simply happen. Their deciding factor is not what's elegant, or what an outside observer wants, but what works. The evolutionary scale, when used to argue merit, serves no purpose other than to put "us" at the top and "them" beneath us.

[Tengu]

no actual improvement

1. More balanced, both between classes and between high and low levels.
2. All classes have options and are fun to play.
3. Got rid of outdated concepts such as random HP.
4. Finally does a good job at representing a heroic high fantasy world.

Thank you, come again.

[Indon]

Evolutionary changes are not "up" or "down." Changes from such a process know no "proper" direction, they simply happen. Their deciding factor is not what's elegant, or what an outside observer wants, but what works. The evolutionary scale, when used to argue merit, serves no purpose other than to put "us" at the top and "them" beneath us.

Fair enough.

4'th edition is a highly-specialized niche organism, and so far it seems likely it will be out-competed in many ecosystems inhabited by the highly-adaptable D20 organism and its' subspecies.

[Matthew]

In hindsight I agree that 3rd edition was an improvement, but that is a decision that, objectively, can only >be< made in hindsight. You are certainly welcome to your opinions, but treating them as fact does not make them any more universal than someone else declaring the opposite.

I would say that no decision can ever really be made objectively regarding the merits of one version of D&D over another, least of all at this moment of transition. You will only ever end up with a subjective preference, which is to say 'an opinion'. For instance, in retrospect, and being as objective as I am capable, I think D20 is an inferior system to AD&D.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Fair enough.

4'th edition is a highly-specialized niche organism, and so far it seems likely it will be out-competed in many ecosystems inhabited by the highly-adaptable D20 organism and its' subspecies.

Eh. I'd not make predictions as to its success or failure just yet. There's definitely a strong following for 4e. I know a lot of people who think it's the best new system for D&D ever. I also know people like my best friend who really isn't excited about buying a whole new set of books, no matter how good the new system is. Time will tell.

It is somewhat interesting that one of the great selling points of 3e, the OGL, could be one of the knives that take down 4e. WotC may very well look at the open licensing it created and declare "Et tu Brute" before this is all done. Or it may well be that 4e's success overshadows any concern the OGL might bring. It's hard to predict these things, and anecdotal evidence of what we see personally is rarely a good indicator of the facts.

[Indon]

Eh. I'd not make predictions as to its success or failure just yet.

A fair point. I guess I'm just caught up with Wizards trying to slay the OGL-dragon.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Yes, I'd freely admit that if anything about 3e brings 4e down, it's going to be the OGL, a creature of WotC's own design.

[Lucyfur]

You're right this is only a grab a more money, but we live in a capitalist economic society wtf were you expecting? Hasbro only ONLY give a frack about making more money and if you don't believe that than you need re-examine what kind of world you think you live in. I just wondered what took them so long to put out a new edition. Note that I've already bought the players handbook cause I really like the system.

[Frost]

1. More balanced, both between classes and between high and low levels.
2. All classes have options and are fun to play.
3. Got rid of outdated concepts such as random HP.
4. Finally does a good job at representing a heroic high fantasy world.

Thank you, come again.

1) By making the more powerful classes less capable, and the higher level characters less capable and interesting. Improvement? Maybe, maybe not.
2) All classes have fewer options and are less fun to play then the most common classes of 3.5.
3) Yay! (No seriously, I like this.)
4) Does a horrible job of representing a heroic high fantasy setting, doe represent a heroic low fantasy setting passably.

[Matthew]

Yes, I'd freely admit that if anything about 3e brings 4e down, it's going to be the OGL, a creature of WotC's own design.

Or more significantly, a creature of its former employees' own design. Few of the movers and shakers of 2000 are left at WotC.

[Tengu]

1) By making the more powerful classes less capable, and the higher level characters less capable and interesting. Improvement? Maybe, maybe not.
2) All classes have fewer options and are less fun to play then the most common classes of 3.5.

Only if you have the "I can do everything!" casters in mind. Non-casters have both more options and are more interesting. Really, most builds in 3.5 that didn't involve casting were one-trick ponies, capable of either dealing high damage by charging, or having superior crowd control with their spiked chain, or something. I fail to see what's fun in doing exactly the same thing every every turn for 10+ levels.

4) Does a horrible job of representing a heroic high fantasy setting, doe represent a heroic low fantasy setting passably.

High fantasy is not the same as high magic. Middle-Earth is high fantasy, yet its magic level is low.

[ghost_warlock]

I fail to see what's fun in doing exactly the same thing every every turn for 10+ levels.

Like 4e characters aren't going to be spamming magic missile, lance of faith, and cleave like in the podcast. (I recognize the podcast is only really representative of low-level play, but still it seemed like a lot of doing the exact same thing for 7 rounds only to -not- kill 2 goblins. )

[Frost]

Only if you have the "I can do everything!" casters in mind. Non-casters have both more options and are more interesting. Really, most builds in 3.5 that didn't involve casting were one-trick ponies, capable of either dealing high damage by charging, or having superior crowd control with their spiked chain, or something. I fail to see what's fun in doing exactly the same thing every every turn for 10+ levels.

1) Most 4E characters spend most of their time spamming the same attacks over and over.

2) Which is why you play one of the 10 Base classes that are fun an interesting and do different things every round. And then your PrC for more options.

My point is precisely that in 3.5 you have "good" and "bad" characters, in 4E all the good ones are removed and made into bad ones.

[Zeta Kai]

1. More balanced, both between classes and between high and low levels.
2. All classes have options and are fun to play.
3. Got rid of outdated concepts such as random HP.
4. Finally does a good job at representing a heroic high fantasy world.

Thank you, come again.

1) It probably is more balanced, but most people will agree that game balance came at the cost of a number of other features that 3E had, such as true multiclassing, potent feats, separated class roles, etc.

2) All classes in 3E "have options and are fun to play". The implied lack of options in 3E argument makes so little sense that I'm just going to skip it & move on to the last part of that sentence. "Fun to play" is highly subjective, & no class system can please everyone. Also, unless you can honestly tell me that you've already played the game with every class through a few levels, & that you enjoyed them all, then I'm forced to conclude that you're merely parroting some bandwagon fanboy or marketing employee of WotC.

3) How is randomized HP an "outdated concept" exactly? Nearly all RPGs, both past & present, have used randomized HP, & for good reason. If nothing else, it differentiates characters from each other. It also emulates real life. The number of stab wounds needed to kill a person are fairly random, from what I can tell; some people need 40, some need 100.

4) It's the DM's responsibility to represent the game world. The game designers can, at best, provide decent tools to assist the DM in this task. A bad book in a good DM's hands makes for a good game, & a good book in a bad DM's hands makes for a bad game, as well. This "heroic high fantasy world" that they've created is fine, albeit generic compared to most other campaign settings. But it is irrelevent. The DM is the one who provides the game world, & I've never met a DM who just takes the world out of the box & doesn't make drastic changes.

[kamikasei]

You're right this is only a grab a more money, but we live in a capitalist economic society wtf were you expecting? Hasbro only ONLY give a frack about making more money and if you don't believe that than you need re-examine what kind of world you think you live in. I just wondered what took them so long to put out a new edition. Note that I've already bought the players handbook cause I really like the system.

This is a bogus, though fairly common, argument.

Yes, a company has to make money to survive. Yes, the nature of corporate business means successful businesses are for the most part concerned primarily with making money (as opposed to being concerned primarily with whatever they want to do, and making sure they can turn a profit as a secondary concern).

No, this does not mean that every company must obviously make only the most immediately and obviously "this will line our pockets" decisions. There is such a thing as growing the market - you can make more actual money by having a smaller slice of a larger pie. There is also such a thing as goodwill - customers may be more likely to buy your products and advertise on your behalf if they like how you behave, not just what you make.

[Indon]

You're right this is only a grab a more money, but we live in a capitalist economic society wtf were you expecting? Hasbro only ONLY give a frack about making more money and if you don't believe that than you need re-examine what kind of world you think you live in. I just wondered what took them so long to put out a new edition. Note that I've already bought the players handbook cause I really like the system.

Well, in an ideal free market, companies don't exist to make money - they exist to provide goods and services, and make money because they provide quality goods and services.

Saying, "Corporations suck because that's how capitalism is supposed to work!" is not so accurate.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Or more significantly, a creature of its former employees' own design. Few of the movers and shakers of 2000 are left at WotC.

True enough. OGL was one of the big changes that I fully embraced in 3e. By 23, TSR had pursued several lawsuits against publishers of independant material. It was a shame, really. I remember around the mid-90's, Mayfair Games had a number of simply excellent materials that could be used with AD&D. Those quickly vanished.

The OGL brought out a whole new set of creative minds. There was a whole lot of new material. Some good, some bad. Much of that dried up soon after 3.5e was out, though there's still great finds. Midnight, Iron Kingdoms, and Pathfinder have some good stuff!

[nepphi]

Well, in an ideal free market, companies don't exist to make money - they exist to provide goods and services, and make money because they provide quality goods and services.

Saying, "Corporations suck because that's how capitalism is supposed to work!" is not so accurate.

Define ideal here. A corporation's only purpose -is- to make money. People don't open auto stores because "gosh darn this town needs a mechanic," they open auto stores because "these people need a mechanic, I can therefore make money in fair exchange for their need." Both sides benefit because of the idea of free exchange, not out of some imaginary 'duty' to provide for others' needs. In short, 'you want what I got, what will you give me for it?'

[Indon]

Define ideal here. A corporation's only purpose -is- to make money. People don't open auto stores because "gosh darn this town needs a mechanic," they open auto stores because "these people need a mechanic, I can therefore make money in fair exchange for their need." Both sides benefit because of the idea of free exchange, not out of some imaginary 'duty' to provide for others' needs. In short, 'you want what I got, what will you give me for it?'

By 'ideal' here, I describe the market that selects for the best service. Obviously, this is not the case (which is what leads to corporations being built for money rather than quality - no market pressure really exists to force organizations to produce quality goods).

[nepphi]

Hm. I take issue with your description of ideal, but that's for another time, not a gaming thread. Just curious.

[Kurald Galain]

WELCOME TO THE HORDE OF WHINERS! IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, DONT PLAY

Since you're welcoming people to this "horde", it follows that you're part of that horde, does it not? If you don't like these threads, don't post in them.

3) How is randomized HP an "outdated concept" exactly? Nearly all RPGs, both past & present, have used randomized HP,

That is completely false. Outside of D&D and its spinoffs, virtually NO rpg has ever used random hit points, especially not recently. GURPS doesn't. White Wolf doesn't. TORG doesn't. Amber DRP doesn't either. Neither does OTE, Paranoia, FUDGE, or a couple of others I could mention. Please do your research before making blanket statements.

[Tengu]

1) Most 4E characters spend most of their time spamming the same attacks over and over.

That's simply untrue. Not only does every character start with 2-3 at-will powers, each of which will be useful in different situations, but you also have encounter and daily powers on top of that. It's rare to use the same power for three rounds straight, and in many combats you will use a completely different power each round. Compare this to 3.5's auto-attacking.

2) Which is why you play one of the 10 Base classes that are fun an interesting and do different things every round. And then your PrC for more options.

The problem is that these fun classes are imbalanced - ToB classes are much better than standard melee classes, but are still outperformed by wizards. And many PrCs don't give you more options, they just improve your abilities to perform certain tasks - instead of getting to do new things, you get better at old ones.
Not to mention that 4e has prestige classes too. They're called paragon paths.

1) It probably is more balanced, but most people will agree that game balance came at the cost of a number of other features that 3E had, such as true multiclassing, potent feats, separated class roles, etc.

4e's multiclassing lets you replace almost half of your powers with that of another class, without losing efficiency in both classes, while in 3.5 a wizard 4/rogue 4 sucks at both roles. I prefer fourth edition's model.
Third edition has potent feats, fourth edition has potent powers.
If anything, the class roles in 4e are even more separated then before, as even a brief skim through the rules would told you.

2) All classes in 3E "have options and are fun to play". The implied lack of options in 3E argument makes so little sense that I'm just going to skip it & move on to the last part of that sentence. "Fun to play" is highly subjective, & no class system can please everyone. Also, unless you can honestly tell me that you've already played the game with every class through a few levels, & that you enjoyed them all, then I'm forced to conclude that you're merely parroting some bandwagon fanboy or marketing employee of WotC.

As I mentioned before, 3e lacks options because many classes play exactly the same, and only differ in their capabilities to perform the task they are supposed to do. The difference between a non-controller fighter and a barbarian is that the barbarian rages before charging and auto-attack till the opponent dies.

And I am a man of reason - I don't need to experience something purely mathemathical to know it, if I can read about it and analyze it. I have not played all the classes, but I've seen all of them in action and read through the rules regarding them. All 4e classes are fun to play.

3) How is randomized HP an "outdated concept" exactly? Nearly all RPGs, both past & present, have used randomized HP, & for good reason. If nothing else, it differentiates characters from each other. It also emulates real life. The number of stab wounds needed to kill a person are fairly random, from what I can tell; some people need 40, some need 100.

Show me a game released in the past 10 years that had random HP, apart from DND and Hackmaster. If someone is tougher, it's because he has higher stamina/constitution/whatever, not because he rolled higher. Random HP is imbalancing - what if one player rolled all 1s and 2s while the other one rolled max HP each level?

4) It's the DM's responsibility to represent the game world. The game designers can, at best, provide decent tools to assist the DM in this task. A bad book in a good DM's hands makes for a good game, & a good book in a bad DM's hands makes for a bad game, as well. This "heroic high fantasy world" that they've created is fine, albeit generic compared to most other campaign settings. But it is irrelevent. The DM is the one who provides the game world, & I've never met a DM who just takes the world out of the box & doesn't make drastic changes.

I don't mean fluff, I mean crunch. The domination of casters, over-dependance on magical items and frailty of low-level characters is what makes 3.x a game that represents what it's supposed to do poorly.

----

But you know what? I'm tired of this. Frozen really gave the wisest response here - if you don't like 4e, don't play it and be quiet because everyone and their dog already knows you don't like it.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

By 'ideal' here, I describe the market that selects for the best service. Obviously, this is not the case (which is what leads to corporations being built for money rather than quality - no market pressure really exists to force organizations to produce quality goods).

I find that to be an erroneous statement. The market force is the pocketbook of the consumer.

WotC didn't release 4e just to make money. They released it because they believed that they could make more money on a revised and what's hoped to be an improved system. In the immediate term, it seems to be a success. We've yet to see how it will fair in the following years. It's a highly competitive market in the RPG sense, nowadays. There are plenty of RPGs, old and new, that want players who aren't interested in D&D for whatever reason.

The goal of 4e was to create a product that I (and my fellow gamers) would deem worthy enough to purchase with my valuable entertainment dollars.

[nagora]

Well, in an ideal free market, companies don't exist to make money - they exist to provide goods and services, and make money because they provide quality goods and services.

However a free market is a mathematical and logical impossibility. It's really like trying to plan your economy on the output of dwarven smithies - they don't exist, so no matter how detailed your analysis it's still always going to be wrong.

[rankrath]

1. More balanced, both between classes and between high and low levels.
2. All classes have options and are fun to play.
3. Got rid of outdated concepts such as random HP.
4. Finally does a good job at representing a heroic high fantasy world.

Thank you, come again.

1: the game only becomes unbalanced if the DM and players let it. Sure, you can play a mix-maxing batman, your DM can also crush your character under five-hundred pounds of rock.

2: Any class can be fun to play, just be creative.

3: I like random HP, thank you very much

4: It should be up to the DM to create the world, not the source books.

In conclusion, I'd say the difference between 3.5 and 4E can be sumarised like this:
3.5E: you are in a huge mechanics shop, with all sorts of tools, parts and kits, and told to build a motorcycle. Sure, you could build one that blows up in your face, or you could build a jetbike that breaks the sound barrier.

4E: You are shown ten different bicycles, and told to pick one. All go the same speed, but has differently shaped pedals.

[Crow]

4E: You are shown ten different bicycles, and told to pick one. All go the same speed, but has differently shaped pedals.

I'll take the 3[W] model, with the Dex mod pedals.