Forked Thread: Name exactly what 4E is "missing"

[Markustay]

Then I'd have to ask... why aren't you *playing* your so-called "D&D"?

I am...

and it's loads of fun.

Thanks for asking.

The OP asked us what we thought was missing, not what edition we were playing, and I simply explained what I felt the rules were lacking.

Answering the OP's question warrants my having to answer to someone what I do in my spare time?

Anyhow, I never said the 4e rules were 'defective', I merely stated they weren't my cup of tea, because they were unable to provide me with the type of gaming experience I enjoy. I know lots of people are playing - and enjoying - the 4e ruleset, and more power to them.

I find there is quite a lot of derision in the pro-4e camp for those of us that don't wish to switch, which I never saw in any earlier editons (old-system users were still respected).

Maybe its not the game that has changed so much, but the kind of people playing it?

Anyhow, at close to 300 lbs, I do not 'squeal'.... I NEVER 'squeal'...

I BELLOW.

 

[Tewligan]

Hmmm. If my new signature block doesn't scare up some players (BLATANT PLUG - SEE MY NEW SIGNATURE BLOCK) I might have to try that.

A bit OT, but have you ever checked out meetup.com, IR? You might want to check and see if there's a D&D/gaming group organized through them in your area. The one here in Portland is pretty big, and they work with the awesome FLGS to host game days that are pretty well attended. That's how I was able to get my one-shots started, and I used those to cherry pick the good players for my campaign! May be worth checking out if you haven't looked into it yet...

 

[Tewligan]

Anyhow, at close to 300 lbs, I do not 'squeal'.... I NEVER 'squeal'...

Well, sounds like someone has never seen Ned Beatty's performance in Deliverance...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Anyhow, at close to 300 lbs, I do not 'squeal'.... I NEVER 'squeal'...

300 lbs. ....................lightweight

 

[Relique du Madde]

300 lbs. ....................lightweight

Remember even a 100 lb gorilla can rip your arm off and beat you with it.

 

[malraux]

As someone who never played anything earlier than 3e, though I have read some 2e material, I really don't see all that much missing IMHO. Ok, I'll admit that the core 3 books feel like wotc intentionally left design space open, but I can also see how I'd put stuff back in, e.g. Adventure's Vault.

That's what 4E is missing -- inclusiveness -- and I think that's why the people who dislike it are so vehement about it. Once upon a time, if you wanted to play something that wasn't already in the game, the philosophy was "Okay, we'll shoe-horn it in somehow!"

4E? "Don't want to play something from Column A or Column B? Then get the #&$@ out."

Isn't that a function of your group/DM as much if not more than the system? I'm definitely in the say Yes category when it comes to character creation.

 

[joethelawyer]

my answer is here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...players-not-characters-stats.html#post4498843

 

[Thasmodious]

My answer would be nothing is missing.

I'm not saying the edition is perfect or perfected, but it accomplishes its goal. The ruleset is balanced, streamlined and efficient. It contains the rules you need to resolve the conflicts of a game of fantasy adventure, includes rules and guidelines for adjudicating all situations and maintaining balance, and mostly just gets out of the way. I find the freeform feel of 1e to be stronger than ever as the rules don't butt up against silly mechanics like the Assassination Table or 3e grappling. The rules simply get out of your way and blend into the background. You need one table to handle just about any crazy situation your PCs come up with that isn't already handled by the rules, leaving even improvisation a comfortable breeze. In my current 4e game, we went three straight sessions without cracking a book at the table. We finally had to at the end of the third only because I had neglected to write down the details of the two magical items the party found in a chest near the end of the adventure. The game system just has a tendency to get out of the way and let you PLAY the game.

I really hope, as the rules expand through supplements and community gameplay that the spirit 4e has now remains the same. If it does, 4e will likely be my favorite edition.

 

[El Mahdi]

What is 4E Missing?

The biggest thing missing for me is the same, or better, capacity of the rules for varied character creation. The ability to envision a character, and be able to build it with the rules, is severely limited from past editions. Mostly I think this is because of the reducing of skills and the emphasis on powers, almost to the point where a character is defined by their powers.

When I read all of the "conversion" articles on WoTC, one general concept seemed to keep coming up; "Pretend". If you wanted to convert a 3E character, you're told to use a class of 4E with a build closest to what you're lookikng for, then basically just change the "fluff" of the build to match your concept of the character. However, that means you have to essentially "pretend" the character you just built is the one you had in mind, when it's not.

Here's an example. Even though this wasn't in the conversion articles, say you want to convert a 2E Bladesinger or a 3E Bladesinger Prestige Class (this is one of those things where I think 2E actually did it better than 3E, but that's rare for me). The best way I can see to do it is use a Swordmage, but a Swordmage is not a Bladesinger and vice versa. A Swordmage does not do what a Bladesinger does, or do things the way a Bladesinger would. Yet this is your only option, build a Swordmage and make up your own fluff so it's easier to pretend you are acutally playing a Bladesinger, even though your not.

The first edition I played was AD&D 2E. The first character I played was El Mahdi. When I made the character, I started with a concept and then used the rules to build him as close to that concept as possible. With 2E, he was pretty close to the concept I had envisioned, with 3E I was able to build him exactly as I had envisioned him. 3E's complexity made it even better a tool for doing this. With 4E I can't even come close unless, despite what the mechanics do, I envision what those mechanics mean differently than how they actually work. The level of abstraction required has increased massively, to the point that for me, what's the point of having mechanics at all if they don't provide any support for "fluff".

If anyone feels differently about this, I suggest an exercise. Pick any character from fiction and then build that character with 3E and 4E. I can't imagine how the 4E build will be closer to the concept than the 3E build is. This also isn't about a lack of options in the system yet, as in wait for more material and splatbooks such as PHB2 and the powers books. Using just the 3E/3.5E PHB (no splatbooks or other accessories), I just don't see how a 4E build can be closer to the original concept than a 3E build.

I guess in the end, what's most missing for me is complexity and variety. For some, that may be a good thing. For me, it's as if the soul of the system has been ripped out.

 

[The_Gneech]

Isn't that a function of your group/DM as much if not more than the system? I'm definitely in the say Yes category when it comes to character creation.

No, the group dynamic is a totally different issue. I'm sure if I threw some wonky concept at the other GM of the group, he'd say "Go for it." But then I'd have to figure out how to bash said wonky concept into 4E's slots.

Look at the barbarian writeup posted the other day: "You use powerful two-handed weapons to deal serious damage to your enemies. ... even at the start of your career, the primal spirits of the world infuse your body with vigor. At higher levels, the primal spirits flow more freely through you and your weapons, creating effects that are more obviously supernatural..."

So ... barbarians are druids that wield two-handed weapons. WTF? Dude, I just wanna make my default Conan clone and kick in some lizardfolk teeth, but I can't find him in here anywhere. I can't even find something in the right neighborhood. Conan sure as heck wasn't "infused with nature spirits." Evocation? What is an evocation? Is that just another buzzword for "class feature?" If so, why add it? Why not just call the things class features and be done with it?

The stock answer of "change the fluff, keep the mechanics" is fine and dandy, but we're not playing the HERO System here, where I can take what I want and leave the rest "Just like your salad bar!" in the words of Egg Chen. If I take the mechanics, I gotta take all the mechanics of a class, including its underlying assumptions about role, gear, long-term career path, and so on. In 3E, the wonderfully easy multiclassing made it easy to craft a character concept over time, or even have a character's career molded in unexpected directions by the campaign. Besides the unification of rules, this was 3E great contribution to D&D -- freeing players (and GMs, for that matter) of the straightjacket of rigid class progression.

-The Gneech