What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?

[Remathilis]

I'm not dissatisfied with 4e, but I think elements of it could've been done better (I think that of all editions, btw).

I was expecting, and would've been happy with a slightly more refined Saga edition with a few more D&Disms (AC for one) and an encounter-based magic system. As much as I love 4e, some Sagaism's (Bab and HD for example) would've felt more warm and fuzzy. Ah, progress.

 

[Minicol]

A lot of people say that Fourth Edition is only Dungeons and Dragons in name only and that Pathfinder is its true successor. My question for those of you who hold this view is this: What do you think a Fourth Edition that retained the original spirit of the game would be like?

I'm a newcomer to the hobby, though, and I'd love to read any ideas for how Fourth Edition could have existed without being a rules-reset.

Well, welcome to the hobby, first, and thank you for asking the question.
Your points echo most of my answers.

In my opinion, Fourth Edition is more of a reinvention of Dungeons and Dragons
.

That is exactly what I did NOT want. Nor need.

one that is more focused on the core "kill monsters and take their stuff".

Further to this : I appreciate killing monsters and taking their loot as much as anybody else on these boards, though I find it very boring and very limited if that is the only option offered. True, the game started like this. Making a ta
bula rasa of everything that happened since is NOT what I wanted.

Fourth Edition's canon discards much of the traditional DnD lore (such as the origin of the Abyss and Demons), but also adapts other aspects of it.
".

This is also what I did not want, and this is easily the worse part by a long shot. Rules can change often, and have in the past, but as long as the underlying common experience/background/call it what you want is still here, old material is never truly obsolete.

That also inclines me to believe that Fourth Edition should be viewed as an offshoot of DnD rather than its next step.

I could not agree more with you.

I'm a newcomer to the hobby, though, and I'd love to read any ideas for how Fourth Edition could have existed without being a rules-reset

Rules resets are fine, and had so far brought improvements (at least IMO, as in "more options"), world resets are not.

Now, to adress your question, I was not dead-set against the idea of a 4th edition, even though I did not see the need for it, but I expected it to be an improvement, building on the same core engine that had worked so well for years for me.

That... AND new interesting options, without taking away the old ones.
For instance, I would have welcomed a more realist combat, with parries, dodges ... like in the AGOT D20 game.

Or new classes (and not the lame warlock or the awful dragonborn).

In short, I wanted mostly same classes, exact same feel AND faster combats (as in faster grapple, no spiked chains, no tower shields).

And since someone else than WOTC is granting my wishes ...

 

[Wormwood]

jep, those skill challenges presented at D&D experiences sounded great... Too bad, the designers listened to nerdrage... and invented a new system which is just the old complex skill system from unearthed arcana...

Complete agreement there.

After those initial reports, I recall getting into some mighty flame-wars defending the bold new 'narratavist' (for lack of a better term) direction in which D&D was heading.

I should have known better.

 

[The Ghost]

To put it simply - I would take the inspiration of the 1e DMG, with the options of the 3.5e PHB, coupled with the simplicity of the 4e MM. To me, that would be the ideal game.

 

[kitsune9]

I want to start off by saying that I prefer Fourth Edition. I started playing and DMing in 2005 with 3.5 and found Fourth Edition to be a welcome change. I've never played anything prior to 3.5, but I have read many people's opinions and experiences with previous editions.

A lot of people say that Fourth Edition is only Dungeons and Dragons in name only and that Pathfinder is its true successor. My question for those of you who hold this view is this: What do you think a Fourth Edition that retained the original spirit of the game would be like?

In my opinion, Fourth Edition is more of a reinvention of Dungeons and Dragons than the next step in its evolution. The designers weren't as concerned with further altering the system as they were with taking the general concepts of Dungeons and Dragons and making their own game, one that is more focused on the core "kill monsters and take their stuff" concept than the "simulationist fantasy world" experience. The website Critical Hits made the comment that Fourth Edition is similar to Marvel Comics' Ultimate series (a line that takes classic characters and reinvents them for modern audiences), and I agree with that. Fourth Edition's canon discards much of the traditional DnD lore (such as the origin of the Abyss and Demons), but also adapts other aspects of it. That also inclines me to believe that Fourth Edition should be viewed as an offshoot of DnD rather than its next step.

Pathfinder seems to be the most well-developed state of DnD's original form. Third Edition stayed relatively true to its roots, and Pathfinder has worked to fix some of the system's most egregious problems. The few new features it introduces continues the tradition of diverse subsystems for different classes (Combat Feats, Channeling for Clerics, Rage Points for Barbarians, Ki Pool for Monks, etc). Pathfinder's designers tout the system's reverse-compatibility with Third Edition material. Even if they hadn't held themselves to reverse-compatibility I wouldn't be surprised if their game had still come out relatively unchanged from 3.5.

It's difficult for me to imagine what a Fourth Edition that was not a rules-reset would be like. I'm not sure how the designers would be able to make enough beneficial changes to warrant a new edition without making any drastic changes to the age-old system. I'm a newcomer to the hobby, though, and I'd love to read any ideas for how Fourth Edition could have existed without being a rules-reset.

Yeah, I would say Pathfinder was what I was hoping 4e would be with some Tome of Battle tossed in for all the classes and more a reinventing the magic items, spells, etc. Anyways, I didn't get it, so no worries. With a whole bunch of D&D variants out there, there's something for everyone now.

Happy Gaming

 

[Lord Xtheth]

I just want to pop-in for a second and remind everyone that this topic is chiefly for people dissatisfied with 4E to say what they would have preferred it to have been like.

Let me start off by saying I am VERY satisfied with the gameplay I'm getting from 4e. I am happy with the system as it stands and find every monent I'm running the game fun and exciting. Yes, I've run into a couple "hiccups" but no more than when I first went from 2 to 3, or 3 to 3.5 .

However, what I THOUGHT 4e would be like is a very different picture than what I got. I thought the classes would be set up more like True20 where you pick an archetype and have any number of options to customize your character. I thought there would be alot more options. I thought there would be alot less restrictions. I thought combat would be both cleaner and faster. I was hoping alignments were optional and unnessisary (Unaligned AS an alignment pisses me off).

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I wanted 4th edition to be nothing more than another revision of 3e.
4th edition as it sits might as well be a new game.

I like some of what pathfinder has done. The classes with less dead levels and the combat manuever ratings. I hate condencing of skills in Pathfinder. Fine for Mutants and Masterminds, but not in D&D. I also dont like the new skill rank system.
But Im one of those people that thinks a new edition should be 100% compatible with the older edition (within reason, if the previous edition was horrid or long out of print or in play), to the point that it takes nothing more than a simple look and maybe a few notes until it becomes second nature to remember that if that presitge class required Wilderness Lore to enter it now needs Survival.

 

[DandD]

jep, those skill challenges presented at D&D experiences sounded great... Too bad, the designers listened to nerdrage... and invented a new system which is just the old complex skill system from unearthed arcana...

C
After those initial reports, I recall getting into some mighty flame-wars defending the bold new 'narratavist' (for lack of a better term) direction in which D&D was heading.

How did the skill challenge presented at D&D experience differ from the current one (roll a bunch of skill-checks, if the DC was hit often enough times, you won)? I've never been there, so I don't know how it looks.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

4e is pretty damn close to what I wanted. I am not one for keeping that close to tradition. I believe that each edition should be a reinvention not a continuation of the past. Thus 4e accomplishes this by going in its own direction with rules and fluff while still keeping in my eyes as continuing D&Disms.

The only thing I would like to see more of from 4e is more inclusion of other genres (hopefully further books will add to this) and to continue even more so in its more narrative orientation. It is more so then past D&D editions, but more the better

I could list a couple things I would like to see altered for the rules, but they are minor things that really are just additions to the core rules. So overall it is exactly what I wanted.

 

[Sadrik]

3e was sold on options

4e was sold on not being 3e

I bought into the whole marketing of the game and eagerly awaited the new things that were driveling out from WotC. However when I had the book in my hand, I was shocked and stunned and could not place what I didnt really like but I knew there was something. 3e was not doing it for us both because of its problems and WotC sold most of us on the concept of a shiny new game and how bad the 3e was. Eventually, our group moved to other systems because we were not happy and I think that the impotence for change had been driven so hard into us that we changed. We discovered Savage Worlds which is still my favorite game. I mean wow, what a game. Then I moved. Moving to a new city and being a gamer, you can guess it... you get into D&D and 4e at that.

After revisiting 4e I have sense come around. I believe the core mechanics of the game are sound if not superior to 3e, however, there are sub-systems that need fixing. I would love a 3pp to do it if WotC won't. In general, things that could use a can opener: remove 99% of feat requirements (including tier), remove class defined roles, eliminate at-will and daily powers and fix a core mechanical problem (imo) stat polarity. Throw these into an "Advanced D&D" supplement and you make me happy. Options not restrictions, it needs to be the mantra.