4e / GSL 11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[Stalker0]

I disagree that players don't' have to plan for higher levels. As others have mentioned, stat prereqs are such that is an important decision, perhaps too important with some of those high prereq feats.

I will say that I think high level character creation is much much easier for everyone, and it has nothing to do with picking powers. Its the magic items!

In 3e, when I made a high level character, first thing I did was pick a class, then I picked a race, then I picked magic items. Not feats, not skills, not even mage spells, magic items.

I need a +6 Ac here, need some energy resistance there, oh...got to have something of death ward. Okay, I'm a fighter, need some way to fly..or teleport...or both.

Magic item buying was by far the longest step in the creation process in my opinion and all the math you had to do afterwards also took forever. 4e has definately streamlined that process down.

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Moyer

I think polls are a great way to get the "pulse" of a population, and, when done properly, are fairly accurate. However, I'd be hesitant to extend the results of internet polls to the general gaming community for two main reasons. First, these kinds of polls are self-selected - even though it's relatively easy to click an answer, only people with strong feelings one way or the other are likely to respond. Second, the population of gamers who frequent EN World - computer savvy, articulate (in general ), passionate about their game, aware of events in the industry - may not be representive of the population of gamers at large.

However, I do think the EN World poll is a better indicator of the level of interest in 4e than the number and nature of posts to this thread. One reason is that the number of respondents is larger, but the main reason is that the level of self-selection in this thread is even higher than the internet poll. Only people who truly give a damn one way or the other will spend 10-20 minutes reading the thread and writing a response. The average gamer - perhaps even the average EN Worlder - just doesn't care.

I myself didn't go to that thread with the poll when it first came out just because I don't like the edition battle threads.

I went to this one, read the OPs point of view, saw a few civil folks reply in what appeared an honest debate on pros and cons and I wanted to get in on the conversation.

I like both for different reasons. I prefer 3.5 because I feel I have more control with my character and I loved all the different options. To me 4e feels like a video game but I like a lot of changes too, so I improve on my 3.5 games.

I play and DM both versions and for our magazine I create content for both. I don't really fit in either edition.

I think ENWorld is a good pulse for what people want, but I still hold firm, unless you get the entire community of D&D goers to read and vote, it will never be a true reading.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

Polls are not really a fair assessment of anything. I checked out your post to see what it was all about and here you link it to an edition war thread. IMO, you should have let your arguments stand on their own. Now it just feels like a trap instead of a place to discuss likes and dislikes. I thought people brought up good points on each side, now, it feels like you just wanted people to come out of the closest and express views or read your thread when they might not have before.

Why is the other thread an "edition war" thread? Just because the original poster (who wasn't me) started a poll asking people for their preferred edition?

I know that internet polls are purely anecdotal. However, this poll probably represents a more accurate snapshot of the mood on ENWorld since it takes so little time to answer, while posting in this thread or others takes considerably more effort and thus the posts are much less likely to be representative.

(And I really don't get the "trap" claim, either...)

I found those results very interesting. In your linked thread it appears that 4e is more popular, but that doesn't really mean anything. When I was manning the Dragon Roots Magazine booth at GenCon I got a lot of feed back from people telling me that they either were stuck in AD&D or wanted more 3.5 content. Very few actually said they made the move to 4e.

It could just as well be that 4E fans are less vocal because they are more content with the new edition, while those who don't like it are much more likely to speak up because they are dissatisfied. That's a rather old phenomenon - it's the exceptions which are more noticeable than the norm.

However, you can't claim that poll for anything unless you force every ENWorld member to read and vote on it.

I said that that poll was "more accurate" than individual posts, not "absolutely accurate". At the very least, it has a far greater number of responses, which tends to count for a lot in statistics.

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

Too many supplements spoils the game, but a nice balance is fine. By dismissing everything but the core rules you have limited the game.

When I'm buying RPG supplements, I'm primarily interested in setting materials, and I follow multiple game lines - not just D&D. Thus, I play D&D only part of the time, and I have little interest in purchasing pure rules supplements unless they are particularly awesome.

To my mind, an RPG system - any RPG system - should be able to stand on the merits of its core rule set alone, without the help of any supplements. I realize that other people see things differently, but that's my general approach.

They had to leave out those classes, instead of taking up 3 pages per class, each class not takes up 10 or more pages because of the need to add in more powers. It is the biggest PHB in the history of D&D and it doesn't cover everything.

I think the 3.5 PHB had a similar page count and it had a much smaller font size - 10 pt. instead of 12 pt. or something like that. If they had used a smaller font size for the 4E PHB, they could have put more material into it. I realize that other people like the new font size, but I am not one of them.

As to having to reply on certain supplements to make certain classes more interesting, well, it goes both ways. Wizards are interesting, an Incantrix is more so, an Arch Mage even more.

Wizards were plenty interesting with the 3.5 rules alone. I can't say the same thing for fighters.

Fighters by themselves, with just the 3.5 core books, were fun to play and it was up to the player to be creative to find new uses for the feats and such. Sorry if you never figured that out.

Well, give me some examples. What kinds of builds - using the 3.5 core books alone - would have resulted in a fighter who could, say, use four different combat maneuvers in a single, "typical" fight that each represented effective tactics?

IMO, the only difference in combat dynamics is that now, because of WOTC “balancing” the math of the game, the minions can actually hit the PCs at higher levels because it is harder to get outrageous ACs. Other than that, they still seem to pose the same threat as the 3.5 minions.

In 3.5, low-level NPCs and monsters represented no threat at all to high-level PCs. Any enemies that were actually capable of hitting such PCs also had a fairly large number of hit points which made it next to impossible of killing such foes with one hit. That 4E minions work differently changes the combat dynamics significantly. In 3.5, such foes were basically boring - no more than a kind of obstructive terrain that the PCs would have to deal X points of damage to get to their real enemies. Now minions are a danger in their own right and can no longer be ignored.

Becoming a real threat to the PCs is a huge difference from "no threat at all".

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

Why is the other thread an "edition war" thread? Just because the original poster (who wasn't me) started a poll asking people for their preferred edition?

I know that internet polls are purely anecdotal. However, this poll probably represents a more accurate snapshot of the mood on ENWorld since it takes so little time to answer, while posting in this thread or others takes considerably more effort and thus the posts are much less likely to be representative.

(And I really don't get the "trap" claim, either...)



It could just as well be that 4E fans are less vocal because they are more content with the new edition, while those who don't like it are much more likely to speak up because they are dissatisfied. That's a rather old phenomenon - it's the exceptions which are more noticeable than the norm.



I said that that poll was "more accurate" than individual posts, not "absolutely accurate". At the very least, it has a far greater number of responses, which tends to count for a lot in statistics.



When I'm buying RPG supplements, I'm primarily interested in setting materials, and I follow multiple game lines - not just D&D. Thus, I play D&D only part of the time, and I have little interest in purchasing pure rules supplements unless they are particularly awesome.

To my mind, an RPG system - any RPG system - should be able to stand on the merits of its core rule set alone, without the help of any supplements. I realize that other people see things differently, but that's my general approach.



I think the 3.5 PHB had a similar page count and it had a much smaller font size - 10 pt. instead of 12 pt. or something like that. If they had used a smaller font size for the 4E PHB, they could have put more material into it. I realize that other people like the new font size, but I am not one of them.



Wizards were plenty interesting with the 3.5 rules alone. I can't say the same thing for fighters.



Well, give me some examples. What kinds of builds - using the 3.5 core books alone - would have resulted in a fighter who could, say, use four different combat maneuvers in a single, "typical" fight that each represented effective tactics?



In 3.5, low-level NPCs and monsters represented no threat at all to high-level PCs. Any enemies that were actually capable of hitting such PCs also had a fairly large number of hit points which made it next to impossible of killing such foes with one hit. That 4E minions work differently changes the combat dynamics significantly. In 3.5, such foes were basically boring - no more than a kind of obstructive terrain that the PCs would have to deal X points of damage to get to their real enemies. Now minions are a danger in their own right and can no longer be ignored.

Becoming a real threat to the PCs is a huge difference from "no threat at all".

Fighters had variety based on feats and style of play. I played in a game that restricted use to core rules with a fighter and because of the way I played him I had a blast. Add in things like the duelist and even more so. Sure, they didn't have hundreds of spells to choose from so yes, they didn't have hundreds of different options, so if you need that many options, I guess a fighter is not for you but they can and are fun to play even with just the basics. However, compared to magic in 3.5, I guess you could argue that everything else is boring. You can read threads like, "Does magic marginalize rogues," to get in on that fight.

Minions in 3.5 is all in how the DM house rules them. To me, house rules are as much a part of DMing and D&D as the regular rules. Even Gary Gygax house ruled the game and encouraged others to as well. In his most famous quote he says, “The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. I'm sure you won't agree since you appear to like only the source books. I don't want to assume that you limit yourself to just the straight rules but if you don't use anything but the core books, one could imply from such a statement that you don't use house rules or vary sparingly if you do.

My point is that, yes, if you used a 1 hp standard orc fresh right out of the MM, yes, a hundred of them will not touch a mid to high level PC with even just a little AC. However, smart DMs who don't let things get out of control like 40-100 ACs and use a few select house rules can have minions that are just as effective as 4e. The DMGII introduced mob tactics and that even worked better for 3.5 minions. With a mob, you didn't need to have special house rules for dealing with effective minions, all you needed was a swarm of the same type of creature and they would deal damage to a PC or most likely many PCs regardless of ACs.

It is all in how you present and deal with the rules and monsters.

As to the trap I was referring to, you come on and say 11 things you like about 4e, someone asks you a few things you don't like and you come on with a cordial reply and then others start to chime in and share their pros and cons, then you slap everyone in the face and say, "hey, this is how I figure people posting on this thread feel about 4e but really, check out this thread which is how people should feel about 4e."

To me that seemed disingenuous. I would have had more respect for your thread had you not tried to do your poll within your own thread and point out results in yours. Your thread was things you liked about 4e, not how many people like 4e and why I or others should too.

[La Bete]

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

To me that seemed disingenuous. I would have had more respect for your thread had you not tried to do your poll within your own thread and point out results in yours. Your thread was things you liked about 4e, not how many people like 4e and why I or others should too.

I really think you're reading a bit much into this.

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

I tend to be annoyed when I have to rely on supplements to make a certain character concept interesting. That's also why I am judging 4E on its initial release as well - I'm just as annoyed that they left out several classic classes in 4E.

I think though, that there really wasn't much they could do about it based on how the design of the game works.

Once they decided they wanted power sources and roles, they probably first started with concepting which classes went into what role and power source.

They only had so much space to work with, so probably once they did that they realized they could only realistically include three power sources while still giving people options within the power sources and roles. They chsoe the 3 most "classic" power sources. Martial, Arcane, and Divine...

Barbarian Druid, Monke and Bard, didn't make the cut because of their power sources. The only other option would be, change their power source, or reduce the options within the already present power sources.

Races fell into a similar issue... Once they decided theyw anted each race to sort of fill an archetype and be the epitome class/race combo they ahd to make some choices.

They put Warlock in to give Arcane some options, but what race best suited a Warlock class/race combo? The Gnome? Somehow Gnome Warlock just doesn't seem like it's the right fit...

Half orcs fit with Barbarians right? So they had to be out...

Tiefling just works well with Warlock. Dragonborn were a good fit for paladin. (Since Humans were intended to be a can do any of the classes race...)

1/2 elf made the cut because they can do the cleric schtick.

The only option for including the dropped races would be to completely revamp them, or reduce options wthin the space you had...

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

then you slap everyone in the face and say, "hey, this is how I figure people posting on this thread feel about 4e but really, check out this thread which is how people should feel about 4e."

To me that seemed disingenuous. I would have had more respect for your thread had you not tried to do your poll within your own thread and point out results in yours. Your thread was things you liked about 4e, not how many people like 4e and why I or others should too.

Don't read too much into an off-hand comment, and certainly don't take offence from it or start attacking other people (which your last paragraph here is doing).

Keep it nice, folks.

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by TerraDave

Good list!

I would add: super streamlined d20 system.

The common 1/2 level modifier, simple skill training, consolidated skill list, simplified combat manuevers, unified mechanics for attack "powers"...

This is probably my single favorite change.

I forgot about that - I agree, that is one of the stand-out changes to my mind.

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

About the character creation: There are two tables, one in the PHB, and one in the DMG, that list the gains per level. The PHB table is good for advancing, as it notes changes. The DMG table is good for creation at high levels, as it states the absolute numbers. The DMG table is really perfect for character creation at higher levels.

Good call, I've not been all through the DMG yet, and didn't notice the DMG table.

Cheers

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by La Bete

I really think you're reading a bit much into this.

I could be, but then why even bring up a post poll in this thread ans then compare it to another?

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

Don't read too much into an off-hand comment, and certainly don't take offence from it or start attacking other people (which your last paragraph here is doing).

Keep it nice, folks.

I don't really think I am attacking him. I think I am being civil, at least that is how I am trying to come off. Then again, I don't always come off as intended in posts.

To me, the thread started off as one thing and that comment just made me feel like it was trying to switch gears. Of course, by me bringing it up, I am aiding in the gear switching.

Anyway, no worries, I am just making comments. If the OP doesn't want input just let me know and I will not ruin his thread. I just wanted in on the orignal debate.

[DM-Rocco]

NOTE:The above post is not meant to be sarcastic or in anyway back talking a mod. Just to make sure we are all clear on that.

[Wonka]

Whether or not the OP wanted feedback/comments or not, they posted here and didnt blog it, so thats exactly what they are going to get. It worked the same way in the "Disowning D&D" thread thats gotten a bit long. It works both ways

[D'karr]

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

I could be, but then why even bring up a post poll in this thread ans then compare it to another?

Maybe 'cause it was relevant. Somebody put up some numbers and he pointed them to a location that might represent "more accurate" numbers.

There was no bait & switch.

Now back to the thread:

I use house rules to accomplish multiple things in my game all the time. I limit my game to Core Rules only, with a few exceptions. If a player wanted something specific from another source, I've always been open to their suggestions. 90% of the time we have made some flavor changes & few mechanical changes and they've gotten what they wanted. In turn I got what I wanted, which was control of outside sources that might or might not fit what I had in mind for a specific campaign.

For 4e, I've found that the classes serve many purposes with just a bit of "reflavoring". I have a player that is playing a Swashbuckler, in this case a ranger repurposed. I have another that is playing a psionicist, using the warlock as a base. I find that the core classes, due to the amount of powers they have, can easily fit several concepts with very little modification, except for flavor.

This was something that was available in 3e also, to a certain extent. But most of the time it was better to either create or institute a new class rather than repurpose one that already existed.

So for me the "genericness" of the classes is a good thing.

[D'karr]

Originally Posted by Wonka

Whether or not the OP wanted feedback/comments or not, they posted here and didnt blog it, so thats exactly what they are going to get. It worked the same way in the "Disowning D&D" thread thats gotten a bit long. It works both ways

Comments is one thing, rudeness is another.

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by D'karr

Maybe 'cause it was relevant. Somebody put up some numbers and he pointed them to a location that might represent "more accurate" numbers.

There was no bait & switch.

Now back to the thread:

I use house rules to accomplish multiple things in my game all the time. I limit my game to Core Rules only, with a few exceptions. If a player wanted something specific from another source, I've always been open to their suggestions. 90% of the time we have made some flavor changes & few mechanical changes and they've gotten what they wanted. In turn I got what I wanted, which was control of outside sources that might or might not fit what I had in mind for a specific campaign.

For 4e, I've found that the classes serve many purposes with just a bit of "reflavoring". I have a player that is playing a Swashbuckler, in this case a ranger repurposed. I have another that is playing a psionicist, using the warlock as a base. I find that the core classes, due to the amount of powers they have, can easily fit several concepts with very little modification, except for flavor.

This was something that was available in 3e also, to a certain extent. But most of the time it was better to either create or institute a new class rather than repurpose one that already existed.

So for me the "genericness" of the classes is a good thing.

I both love and hate the 4e classes. I like most of the new features that the clases have but the thing I really hate is how long it takes to make a new class, and I am referring to a new class from the ground up, not just switching a power or two. You feel almost obligated to come up with 50 new powers.

I didn't think of it until your post, but it would have been cool if they would have printed a base class for a controller, leader, defender and a striker with just the basics and what each level of powers should look like and then just add in your own flavor. It would be easier than having to modify a "base" class like the Warlock for example.

i did create a few new classes for 4e and i had a blast making them. They didn't really fit into the 3.5 realm. I thought them up years ago but 3.5 doesn't, IMO, work all that well with at will powers and things like that and these calsses were based on at will powers so they just happened to fit into 4e better.

[Wonka]

Originally Posted by D'karr

Comments is one thing, rudeness is another.

Ill just state that I don't think anyone is being rude in this thread, just as I didn't think anyone was rude in the other thread I mentioned. And again Ill preface this with maybe I've just gotten myself used to other forums, where if people were rude you KNEW it, and that I just don't see it here. Again, this speaks highly of the general community here and the work of the moderators, and makes this forum such a nice one to visit.

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Wonka

Whether or not the OP wanted feedback/comments or not, they posted here and didnt blog it, so thats exactly what they are going to get. It worked the same way in the "Disowning D&D" thread thats gotten a bit long. It works both ways

Originally Posted by D'karr

Comments is one thing, rudeness is another.

I'm not sure if you are calling me rude, Wonka rude both of us or neither.

Anyway, if me, I am not trying to be, I look at my posts as just comments.

I'm not sure i agree with you Wonka. The OP didn't come on and say, "to hell with all other editions, 4e rules and you are wrong," he simply stated why he liked it and wanted input, which I can respect. I don't think anyone's post should be derailed by someone coming in to just pick a fight.

I don't like it when peole think that way of me, so I don't want to say that is why you are here. However, it sounds like it.

[D'karr]

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

I both love and hate the 4e classes. I like most of the new features that the clases have but the thing I really hate is how long it takes to make a new class, and I am referring to a new class from the ground up, not just switching a power or two. You feel almost obligated to come up with 50 new powers.

I kind of agree. Repurposing a class is actually pretty easy. Even doing some power swapping from several classes is doable to conform to a given concept. I think the best way to approach this is to get a clear picture of what the concept for the class will be. Then look for existing powers that fit that concept. Then supplement with new powers as you see fit.

Once the concept for the class is clear it makes it a lot easier to do. But creating one from scratch can seem truly daunting, if you are trying to create each power from scratch.

I would not necessarily like a generic class build up but I'd like to see some sample concepts and how they would implement them. I think that would be more useful for the scratch builder.

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Wonka

Ill just state that I don't think anyone is being rude in this thread, just as I didn't think anyone was rude in the other thread I mentioned. And again Ill preface this with maybe I've just gotten myself used to other forums, where if people were rude you KNEW it, and that I just don't see it here. Again, this speaks highly of the general community here and the work of the moderators, and makes this forum such a nice one to visit.

Ah, I see what you are saying. ENWorld is as obvious as say Circvs Maximvs for example. You do need to be a bit more mindful and while most people will truely know if you are being a pain, some people seem a but more sensative than others.

For the record, I don't think anyone in this thread is being either too mean or too sensative and that a debate is still going on in good standing

[Wonka]

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

I'm not sure i agree with you Wonka. The OP didn't come on and say, "to hell with all other editions, 4e rules and you are wrong," he simply stated why he liked it and wanted input, which I can respect. I don't think anyone's post should be derailed by someone coming in to just pick a fight.

I don't like it when peole think that way of me, so I don't want to say that is why you are here. However, it sounds like it.

Woah woah woah! That was completely NOT the intention of my post. I was in NO way saying you were doing this. In fact, I was SUPPORTING your arguments as being civil and reasonable. My original post was directed at no one in particular, and everyone in general. I was merely stating, and responding to an earlier post suggesting people were getting rude, out of hand, and off topic in the thread. My point was that if you take the time to post your views, regardless of the subject and your opninon on them, on a message board such as this, you have to expect responses and that not all of them will agree with you. If you just want to post your thoughts without dealing with responses, your best off Blogging. I further responded by saying that I didnt think anyone in this thread was being rude, yourself included. Sorry if I came of sounding like I was attacking you, because I most certainly wasn't. Hopefully I have cleared up any misunderstandings!