Finally got the 4e core books

[Grimstaff]

I have decided that WOTC sure put one over on me and anyone else that bought these books; I mean, what is so special here that it required a whole new edition?

If I may ask, what exactly was it that you found to be same-old-same-old?

Whether you ask a 4E lover or hater, they're bound to agree 4E is a radical sea change from 3.5 (though some feel it is very similar to B/X or 1E, but with Powers), so I'm curious as to how you got the overall impression that these weren't new-edition-worthy changes?

 

[Asmor]

Love it or hate it, I don't see how anyone can look through the book and think 3e and 4e are remotely comparable.

 

[radferth]

I believe the OP is saying that the changes were not enough of an improvement to warrant the overhaul. Not that they weren't big changes.

 

[Mercule]

I believe the OP is saying that the changes were not enough of an improvement to warrant the overhaul. Not that they weren't big changes.

I certainly hope that was the intent, but I read it as most other people seem to have: "Same-old, same-old."

Assuming it's a question of "improvements", I'd venture to say that it depends on what you're looking for from a game.

I've been pretty down on 3.5 for about a year, now. Recently, though, I had an epiphany. It isn't that 3.5 sucks. It's that it accomplishes things I don't want from a game (mainly, rewarding system mastery -- which is probably an odd thing for a 25+ year veteran of many systems and the appointed "rules master" in my group to find undesirable, but there you go).

I think 3e focused on certain (design) elements that had always been present in D&D, and let others slip to the wayside. 4e focuses on a largely different set of elements that, again, were always present. Both 3e and 4e, of course, added new elements into the mix, but I don't think that's really the source of the schism.

My bet is that, while many people can enjoy both, most will consider one to be clearly superior to the other. That will be based on what elements they enjoy most. I think the same is probably true of whether people think 4e "feels like" D&D.

 

[LostSoul]

There has been a big conceptual shift between the two editions.

3e = rules are king
4e = game fiction is king

Here's a simple example:


I'm fighting some orcs in a bar. One of them is near enough the wizard to charge, and I, the Fighter, am too far away to block him.

So I pick up a barstool and throw it at the orc, hoping to trip him.


3e? I cannot do this without the Ranged Trip feat, from one of the splat books; in the core, I just can't do this.

4e? I can do this, as long as the DM allows it. The DMG is full of advice telling the DM to allow it, and guidelines for resolving it.

In 3e, the rules define the world, and what is plausible within it; in 4e, this is the DM's job, who should take care to say yes to the cool ideas of the players.

Is that an improvement or not? Depends on how you like to play.

 

[Arnwyn]

Recently, though, I had an epiphany. It isn't that 3.5 sucks.

You don't say?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So I pick up a barstool and throw it at the orc, hoping to trip him.

3e? I cannot do this without the Ranged Disarm feat, from one of the splat books; in the core, I just can't do this.

4e? I can do this, as long as the DM allows it. The DMG is full of advice telling the DM to allow it, and guidelines for resolving it.

So what you're saying is that 3e didn't need a system overhaul so much as your DM just needed to be given explicit permission to take charge of his game.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

So what you're saying is that 3e didn't need a system overhaul so much as your DM just needed to be given explicit permission to take charge of his game.

Encouraged. We´re not all experienced DMs. It´s better that the corebooks spell this out.

 

[Sir Trent]

To answer a lot of people's posts; I don't believe that the changes made were an improvement over the older additions. Yes, they are different, but to me it was all just superfluous. I just wasn't impressed; I was expecting even more radical changes. From what I've read today it seems that those who love 4e are those who never divert from the rules. Those who hate it are those who use the books more as a guideline. Is this a fair statement?

 

[The Little Raven]

From what I've read today it seems that those who love 4e are those who never divert from the rules.

Personally, it's that I don't want to divert from the rules, because I've spent nearly $90 buying rules and they should work out of the box.