The system doesn't allow for characters or other game elements from other editions of D&D to be rendered effectively; i.e. there is no 4e character that could provide an approximately similar mechanical representation and play experience to my 3e (or earlier) fighter, wizard, rogue, druid, etc.
What it can render effectively are PCs that were tried in other editions and were quite simple concepts but failed because they were fighting the rules set every step of the way. I'm currently DMing a throwback - 4e Undermountain where three of the PCs played mostly the same characters in 2e Undermountain. Three of the PCs are meant to be matches. The thief about is. The 2e firemage has become a 4e elementalist sorceror - and that's the character the player was trying to play in the 2e era; a big simple firemage who felt magical in part because he never ran out of magic. And a smart warrior who was a fighter in 2e and it didn't mesh well. In 4e she's a Taclord, and it fits the character perfectly.
So I have in a current party of four, two PCs who started off being played under 2e rules (or rather one who did and the other is the grandson of the original PC) - and the 4e rules fit the concept much much better than the 2e rules ever did in both cases.
A beginner finds in 4e a system that forces them into a much narrower design space than previous editions, preventing them from creating any character that is outside the AEDU, limited multiclassing, standard modifier box.
On the other hand they find themselves in a much better fleshed out design space. They find one with upwards of twenty five classes (it was 25 before Essentials completely muddied the count) that are written about archetypes and look, feel, and play distinctively (at least if you know how to play them).
It's in my experience
only players of historic versions of D&D that find the multiclassing rules and the AEDU box to be restrictive. Because they already have mechanics in mind when they start to build the character. If you go in as an actual beginner and start with a concept then 4e is IME most likely to satisfy you out of any edition (with the exception of people who want to play weird species).
On the other hand the "casting is vancian only" box is something I've noticed beginners can find
hideously restrictive. And even experienced players don't like much (the sorceror player I mentioned above started playing D&D in the late 1970s). "I can cast one spell per day, then get to be utterly mundane until the next morning". That's not what a beginner signed up to when they wanted to play a wizard. Instead they want something more like AEDU with cantrips.
Is the contention really that these kinds of experiences are an inherent product of picking up a 3e PHB? Or even typical? If so, how do you explain the number of people playing it?
It's my contention that such problems are an inevitable result of someone with one of several mindsets including systemic and strategic thinking picking up 3.X. On the other hand INTJ (IME the Meyers Briggs type most likely to shatter 3.X) are only a few percent of the population, and many of us looked at high level spells and polymorph, winced, and decided to do something else even if we wanted to play mages.
By the standards of several people who posted in this thread, I believe you have just described a perspective in which 4e is not balanced. (Along with most rpgs). Do you disagree with this conclusion (or with their standards)?
Not at all. Perfect balance is almost impossible. The question is how unbalanced it is. 4e is in about the 8 or 9 ring. 2e is in about the 4 or 5 ring, as is E6. Full court 3.X SRD is lucky to hit the paper at all - and with all splatbooks it misses the wall.
Interesting, I never thought of that. In those shoes, I would have self-regulated myself to not have the PC summon a Triton. And if I didn't, I wouldn't resist whatsoever if the DM made a ruling. I could justify this in several ways.
As a Wis 18 character worried for his life, I'd have in character gone for the Triton. And there being such an obvious loophole to me feels like I'm trying to make up for the game designer having
ed up in an extremely obvious way.
Pun-Pun and the Omniscifer are one thing. But things used the way they are written with the intent they are written for
Well, I think it's narrow in concepts because of the combination of several factors, uniform mechanics being one, but "siloing", its focus on miniature-based combat, and the invention of a variety of new mechanics to limit character power are also relevent.
On the other hand the AEDU structure is fairly close to a decent narrative structure (normal, scene, episode), and unlike classic D&D the casters behave like something approaching casters in non-D&D fiction. Even the wizards from Jack Vance's novels don't have anything like Gygaxo-Vancian casting. And almost the whole of Appendix N (especially Vance and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser) is better played in 4e with its increased role for non-casters and teamwork focus than it was in any previous edition of D&D.
4e may not be as much of a match for classic D&D as othe editions of D&D. But it's a much better match for almost any non-D&D heroic fiction than any other edition of D&D is. Vancian Casting is extremely narrow. So is the van Helsing based Cleric being almost essential for a party, and long bedrest. And the fighter not getting much cool stuff rather than being one of the more focal characters.
Edit:
I've played and DMed 3e D&D with dozens of people and seen almost every class in the PHB come out as being the most powerful in the game at one point or another (bard and monk jump to mind as exceptions). The few clearly unbalanced ones were non-core or DM-empowered characters that look nothing like CODzillas or god wizards and clearly needed fixing (the shifter comes to mind). The only game-breaking class I've seen in the PHB is the paladin; I watched its douchiness take over twice and then banned it.
You've never seen a well played bard then. Or one abusing the Glibness spell for another way into Social God Mode. (Seriously, that thing makes it too easy). As for the paladin, that's a playstyle issue.
