Forked Thread: Did 4e go far enough or to far?

[Aeolius]

Originally Posted by Hunter In Darkness

I think it went way to far, the feel is gone, it's soul missing...I see a tactical mini game designed to push mini's. Gone is the history the fell, gone are d&d wizards replaces with the same class cookie cut out with fluff changes. Gone are core classes and races to be replace with super neto oh look I can play a dragon with boobs. They have robbed names from critters to give to brand new things...It may be a fine game but that game is not D&D.

That about sums it up for me, as well.

When 2e came out I bought the new Players Handbook and didn't care for it, so I stuck with 1e. When 3e was announced, I ranted and raved like the rest of the grognards but I took a look anyway and liked what I saw. I bought the 4e core books the day they were released and they have been collecting dust beside my desk ever since.

4e is the new 2e. I used to call myself a leap-grognard; leaping from 1e to 3e. I have now been replaced by the new generation that skipped 3e, leaping from 2e to 4e.

[JDJblatherings]

too far.

It's a playable fantasy game, it just isn't really D&D. The balance is extreme, no class really stands out much in different situations compared to another classes (play experience could change this). Wizards are just not as versatile and powerful. Most of the non-fighters fight as well as the fighter.
A lot of tactics that people used when playing D&D for 35 years are simply gone, some say they are nerfed, they are gone. Really cool magic items...really suck; ring of invisibility lasts at most 2 rounds, once a day.

I like and dislike the rituals. D&D certainly needed a mechanic that aped a lot of fiction and film where a charcater is sent off to complete a ritual hmmmm..."Klatuu, nicto...barrack...ooops" ...good stuff. But the way it is applied to situations that aren't rituals...tensers floating disk? is weak because of the all damage all the time aspect of powers.

It was possible to spend days planning a wizards spell selection for an upcoming conflict anf really get into it. Sure some people don't like lot's of planning...go play a sorceror. But it let a wizard player really get into playing a wizard. Now..not so much, you're just like everyone else but you get to swap out your powers...oooh awesome.

Monster HP. In stretching out "the sweet spot" they overdid it. Monsters have too many hp. They covered it up with minion concept.

Where did Hit Dice go?

[Psion]

Too far or not far enough: I like alignment. For the sort of game I like with a "tangible moral reality", alignment is great. But I'd rather have no alignment system than what they have in 4e now. It's a joke, a hash up, that lacks any sort of internal logic.

Too far:

• Sacrificing simulation for ease of use (1-1-1 diagonals, I am looking at you)
• Simplifying skills
• Reinventing the metasetting
• Parsing out the core
• "Homogenizing" the play experience
• Emphasizing combat
• Making classes fit "roles"
• Plugging all classes into the same power mechanic
• Nerfing magic

Not far enough:
I'm struggling here. All I'm coming up with is "meaningful electronic support". That was my shining hope for 4e.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Psion

Too far or not far enough: I like alignment. For the sort of game I like with a "tangible moral reality", alignment is great. But I'd rather have no alignment system than what they have in 4e now. It's a joke, a hash up, that lacks any sort of internal logic.

Too far:

• Sacrificing simulation for ease of use (1-1-1 diagonals, I am looking at you)
• Simplifying skills
• Reinventing the metasetting
• Parsing out the core
• "Homogenizing" the play experience
• Emphasizing combat
• Making classes fit "roles"
• Plugging all classes into the same power mechanic
• Nerfing magic

Not far enough:
I'm struggling here. All I'm coming up with is "meaningful electronic support". That was my shining hope for 4e.

If I look at your list, I notice that some of the "too far" stuff seems exactly what I like so much. (Simplifying Skills, New Metasetting, Making Classes Fit Roles, Power Mechanic, Nerfing Magic) (though I might describe things with different words occasionally)

I think such stuff is again a pointer to me that let me to believe that the idea of appealing to a broader audience is futile.

[RangerWickett]

I don't mind playing 4e. I just don't like the aesthetics of the books: visual presentation, mostly (art, the ridiculous overabundance of monochromatic bars on half the pages of the PHB and the entire MM, the fact that WotC employs a bajillion artists for Magic: the Gathering but isn't showcasing their diversity in D&D), but also small stuff like how you heal perfectly from death after 6 hours of napping, or that I can't stab a guy in his foot to slow him down more than once in a 5 minute period, or that the DMG gives little attention to crafting a world.

It's a great game for combat and action, but the world it portrays and the world I want to run are very dissimilar.

[mmadsen]

I think 4E's hit points are a good example of something that went either too far or not far enough. "Healing" now has no connection to physical wounds -- but the only things that do "damage" are "hits" with things that should cause physical wounds.

If hit points are an odd amalgam of grit and determination with luck and divine favor, why can't you use them to overcome fear and mental control or to dodge a poisoned dart, etc.?

[The_Gneech]

Not too far, just in the wrong direction.

-The Gneech

[Shadeydm]

Originally Posted by The_Gneech

Not too far, just in the wrong direction.

-The Gneech

Well said!

[mhensley]

Originally Posted by Psion

Too far or not far enough: I like alignment. For the sort of game I like with a "tangible moral reality", alignment is great. But I'd rather have no alignment system than what they have in 4e now. It's a joke, a hash up, that lacks any sort of internal logic.

Too far:

• Sacrificing simulation for ease of use (1-1-1 diagonals, I am looking at you)
• Simplifying skills
• Reinventing the metasetting
• Parsing out the core
• "Homogenizing" the play experience
• Emphasizing combat
• Making classes fit "roles"
• Plugging all classes into the same power mechanic
• Nerfing magic

Not far enough:
I'm struggling here. All I'm coming up with is "meaningful electronic support". That was my shining hope for 4e.

I agree with you on almost all of this, but I don't mind them reinventing the metasetting so much as them shoving it down our throats. Before I could and did ignore almost all the info given about the planes and demons and devils and what not. Now several of the pc races and even beginning adventures are build directly on that stuff. Meh.

[Mallus]

I don't know --yet-- whether 4e went too far, but the designers certainly went farther than I thought they would. 4e isn't the SWSE-ization of 3e that I was expecting.

In theory I'm really impressed with the descriptive language they developed (or, more accurately, refined) to describe combat actions, and that all combat abilities, for all class's, are expressed using it. In theory I'm also impressed that they moved most PC magic out-of-combat.

(I need to play more 4e before I decide if as impressed with those design choices in practice...)

[Cadfan]

I don't think of it in terms of "far enough" or "too far."

I love 4e. But there are a few things I wish they had done that they didn't do. Warning! Dead horses flogged in the paragraphs to follow! Mercilessly! And then they're reanimated and flogged again!

1. Dragons. I STILL HATE THEM. Even you, brown dragon! You're the best of the lot, and I still hate you! Because BROWN ISN'T A THEME! You've got nice abilities, nice theme, all kinds of nice things, and yet, because of a design decision decades ago and the bowel-watering fear of change that gamers have, you are still monochromatic. The fanciest color scheme dragons have, and ever shall have, apparently, is slightly different shades of a primary color. Red dragons might be red, for example, with stripes that are a slightly darker red. I want dragons with color! Splash! Patterns! Tiger stripes, leopard spots, iridescent purple wing leather set against a sea green body! McFarlane's Dragon series has been beating the pants off of D&D dragons for years now. Its embarrassing.

2. 4e wizards suck. Not mechanically, really, mechanically they're alright. They suck because they're absolutely flavorless. They're the least inspired class in the game, and its probably because they're so influenced by prior editions of D&D, and so influenced by the hatred of the Golden Wyvern Adept. The basic idea, that a wizard wielding a staff should be genuinely different from a wizard wielding a wand, was a good one. But we didn't get it. I think we were going to- I think that's why the wizard's feats don't make a lot of sense. They were designed to fit into a wizard class where secondary attributes mattered and interacted with implements and feat choices and elemental damage types. But I think all of that was murdered, and now all we're seeing is its corpse.

3. Multiclassing works amazingly well! Except when it requires three hands so it doesn't work at all! Right. Not much else to say here. Implement + Weapon + Shield = Time to Awkwardly Hand Jive your Inventory. Remember how 3e patched problems like this with awkwardly worded feats that became must-haves for anyone who wanted to multiclass in a particular way? Practiced Spellcaster, I'm looking at you. I expect this to be another area where that occurs.

4. Changing grips on weapons seems to have been forgotten as an issue. As a result, we now have a rule that makes sense: its a free action, coupled with a class that I'm convinced was designed by someone who didn't remember that fact. Considering that this was an annoying issue in 3e as well (clerics, weapons, shields, holy symbols), you'd think that they would have come up with a fix. It isn't a major issue, but man, it could have been done better.

5. Ok, this one is a little more complex.

The power system has the potential to permit characters to mix and match abilities. This in turn has the potential to allow for a lot of variety by permitting characters to take things that aren't part of their usual suite of powers. For example, a Fighter might want to take a power that helps him fire a crossbow particularly well. Ways to do this are already becoming available: if you look at the gladiator article, the multiclassing mechanic is being used to give characters the ability to learn special weapons tricks that might not fit with their regular class, but which add variety. Like a wizard who mostly casts spells, but occasionally wields a whip, and gets good advantage out of it. The architecture exists for this to happen.

Unfortunately, its got a flaw. Not a major flaw, and maybe even an inevitable flaw, but a flaw.

Basically, its this: the value of a power granted by a feat, or a new option granted by a feat, varies based on who is receiving it. And the game has to charge for it based on the recipient best able to exploit it. So, for example, a power that lets you make an attack based on dexterity has to be charged for on the assumption that someone who's favorite ability score is dexterity will be taking it. But that just makes it over priced when someone who doesn't favor dexterity wants to take it, which in turn limits how much you can use this mechanic to create versatile tricks for your character.

Use the whip as the example.* The whip feats have to be balanced on the assumption that they will be taken by a Rogue. They work based on Dexterity, after all, and rogues have an off hand so they can fight with a dagger/whip combination. That's fair, and I understand this. But a whip might be a cool thing to give to a Warlock, right? Except that warlocks don't use dexterity. So a warlock who uses both magic and a whip would end up with a crappy whip power. That means the whip power should either be less difficult for said warlock to obtain, or, should be powered up. But if its powered up enough it becomes a no brainer for rogues.

I don't like this, but I don't see a solution either other than direct DM intervention. I can't see anything that WOTC could do to fix the situation, since its so... nuts and bolts and based on individual characters.

6. Role isn't destiny. Lots of people said it would be, but it turns out that its not. If I want my Fighter to be a leader, then with smart power and skill choice, and maybe the expenditure of a feat, I am a leader. Maybe not as much as a dedicated leader who started that way, but in enough of a way to count. Nearly every class/role combination is like that to at least some degree.

But, power source IS destiny. This surprised me. Gone are the days when your cleric might fight in melee like a regular person for a while, then cast a spell. You're expected to use powers from your power source for basically every attack you make, ever. The only exceptions are multiclassing, and characters who attack with scores other than Strength and who want to take OAs or charge. I would have expected the paladin, at least, to have at wills that didn't rely on divine power. I figured they would have been martial.

I kind of see why they're not- if they were, they'd either be different from a fighter's, in which case why can't a fighter learn those martial powers? Or they'd be the same as a fighter's, in which case the classes would run together. But it strikes me as odd. Mixed power source characters are a staple in fiction.

The matter I address in point 5 would fix this.

*Technically its a bad example since its restricted to martial characters only, but it gets across the point.

[Roman]

I wanted to vote that it went far too far, but in many respects I also tend to agree with the quote below:

Originally Posted by The_Gneech

Not too far, just in the wrong direction.

[Runestar]

I too am of the opinion that the dnd brandname is actually more of a liability than a boon here. IMO, wotc should just keep supporting 3.5, while releasing 4e under a new category or genre.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Runestar

I too am of the opinion that the dnd brandname is actually more of a liability than a boon here.

How can using the biggest brand name in the hobby (for it's entire history) be a detriment?

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by Najo

This post by WayneLigon got me wondering what everyone thinks about if 4e went far enough or not.

If I were a runner, and I ran 17 miles, did I run far enough, or too far? That depends - was I trying to win a 100 yard dash, or a marathon? Or was the contest actually ultimate frizbee, such that distance run really isn't an issue?

Before we can tell you whether they went too far, or not far enough, we need to have agreement on where they were trying to go, or alternatively, where they should have been trying to go.

I sense very little agreement among the posters here on these points. We have seen some statements from designers on some of the principles, but it isn't like WotC has presented us with a concise document listing them. So, we are all guessing.

In the end, perhaps the ultimate question is, "Did they go far enough to gain economic success for the product?" We have been told sales have been decent. If they remain so, then the answer will be "Yes, they went far enough."