Name one thing you love and one thing you hate about 4e D&D

[El Mahdi]

Mmm...Chipotle burrito. Just the way I like it: chicken, peppers & onions, corn salsa, guac, sour cream, and lettuce. A finer burrito does not exist.

I say, if you can't justify your hunger, you should at least satisfy it.

As for this love/hate thread regarding 4E, it is usually only a matter of time until the discussion sours. Don't get me wrong, I've had a lot of fun reading it over the past couple of days. But eventually, on a long enough time line anyway, everyone starts feeling the need to "prove" how "correct" they are. But like my love for this exemplary burrito before me, there is just no way to prove to an opinion.

Sure, I can wax poetic about the creaminess of the guacamole and sour cream, and how they compliment the crunchiness of the peppers and lettuce, or how the smokiness of the chicken is enhanced by the sweetness of the corn. But to someone who doesn't like Mexican food, it would all be wasted.

Some would argue that I clearly don't know what "good food" is. Some might say that the burrito is played-out, that the New Hotness in town is sushi and everyone who doesn't like sushi is out of touch. Others might argue that it isn't a "real" burrito, because it doesn't have beans or cheese in it. Still others might say that it is actually Tex-mex, which is an aberration of authentic Mexican food and a blight upon the land which must be eradicated by fire.

But I'd still be sitting here, cheerfully munching on the perfect burrito, dribbling little bits of rice onto the napkin in my lap.

Damn! Now I feel REALLY hungry!

 

[I'm A Banana]

One thing I love about this thread:
Love for Chipotle burritos

One thing I hate about this thread:
Not enough pictures of beautiful people

One thing I love about 4e:
The Maths. This was a GOOD IDEA. The game has been based on a d20 for its entire existence, but now, finally, in the fourth version of the game, we have a level arc that doesn't throw it out of whack at either end of the curve.

One thing I hate about 4e:
The lack of Growth. You start mighty. You end mighty. You're never killing rats in the sewers or wishing away gods with a wave of your hands. This is disappointing to me. I liked those parts of the game. I also liked that bit in the middle, but partially because it represented a growth from something, into something else. I miss that.

One thing I hate about 4e Conversations:
Rabid Defenders. I really, really, really hate when I have difficulty posting a simple observation about 4e's relative flaws with regards to my personal opinion without some of the more hardline people treating me like I'm a blaspheming heretic and putting words in my mouth.

 

[Andor]

What do I love about 4e? I love the Paladin class. When I ompare it to a 3e paladin I think this guy kicks ass! (Side note: Do not compare the 4e Paladin to the 4e Cleric, you'll end up wondering why they bothered to make two seperate classes.)

What do I hate (most) about 4e? The disconnect between what happens at the table, and what happens in the dungeon. (How exactly does a warlords inspiring shout get someone who just had his skull pulped and is in death's pocket back on his feet without so much as a hangover? The guy was unconcious at -20 HP fer crying out loud.)

 

[CormEvyrncrest]

Yes, the OP asked about 4E specifically. Naming a problem that many people already had with 3E hardly seems to fit the bill.

If you make an unsupported claim (4E has way more spikiness than 3E, for example) on a public discussion forum, you're going to be challenged.

And, once again, check my sig.

and I'm fine with being challenged...you asked me to prove it....I have not problem with that.
3 ed weapons collage-From Arms & Equipment

and now
2 4e Weapon Collages- from Races n Classes Preview

and

while I don't have much of an issue with the first picture of 4e weapons...though some of the size comparisons I feel are off..., looking at the 2nd image makes me feel like someone had a seizure while drawing weapons. As i understand it, these are to be what the weapons of the Tiefling and Dragonborn races look like?? Yeah..I'll pass. Evil looking weapons, even infernal looking weapons, could have been done with better taste then these.

As for Dragonborn...yes...they are a Power gamer race...anyone with common sense can see that. Half giants could have been choosen..they would have been awesome to have....lizard men, Yuan-ti, Raaksha, Thri-keen..hell..Minotaurs....whens the last time Minotaurs where a "starting race"...NEVER...they been in the books forever...never got a shot at being a "starting race"....

 

[yesnomu]

As for Dragonborn...yes...they are a Power gamer race...anyone with common sense can see that. Half giants could have been choosen..they would have been awesome to have....lizard men, Yuan-ti, Raaksha, Thri-keen..hell..Minotaurs....whens the last time Minotaurs where a "starting race"...NEVER...they been in the books forever...never got a shot at being a "starting race"....

Well, technically they are the most "starting" they have ever been, since there are rules for them as a LA0 race. First time you could ever be a level 1 minotaur!

Anyway, half-dragons have been popular forever, even with the terrible LA. It makes perfect sense that Wizards would make them core in 4e. They aren't any more powerful than any other race, so I wouldn't call them for powergamers. They are good for some things, but bad for others.

 

[jensun]

As for Dragonborn...yes...they are a Power gamer race...anyone with common sense can see that. Half giants could have been choosen..they would have been awesome to have....lizard men, Yuan-ti, Raaksha, Thri-keen..hell..Minotaurs....whens the last time Minotaurs where a "starting race"...NEVER...they been in the books forever...never got a shot at being a "starting race"....

Orcs of Thar for BECMI had rules for starting off as an ogre or a troll.

The creature collections included rules for all sorts of weirdness from Tritons to Pixies.

The Complete Book of Humanoids included rules for starting off as all sorts of creatures in 2e.

Savage Species for 3.x anyone?

Dragonborn are fairly mild compared to a lot of those and nothing about them screams "Powergamer." They do well as some classes and poorly as others, much like every other race barring humans who can be good with pretty much any class.

 

[AllisterH]

(Hopefully this post won't be seen as an attack on anyone....)

Um, I always assumed Dragonborn _WAS_ because of 3.x

Seriously, how many Dragon-themed products did WOTC release? I could see WOTC releasing one product (Draconomicon in 93) to test the waters, but to relased not just one more dragon-themed product, (Races of the Dragon but also Dragons of Faerun/Eberron AND Dragon Magic)

This doesn't even count the number of Dragon-inspired prestige classes that were released outside of these products such as the PHB II and even the original PrC and template from 3.x's core books.

Really, as weird as it may sound, while personally I never understood the big fascination with Dragons (I;m neutral on Dragonborn) there obviously is a large segment of the gamer population (not here on enworld or WOTC's own forums ironically) that love the idea of playing a dragon-inspired race.

When dragonborn were announced it didn't strike me as WOTC giving something for the power-gamers but simply responding to the demand...

 

[The Little Raven]

As for Dragonborn...yes...they are a Power gamer race...anyone with common sense can see that.

Anyone with common sense knows that power gamers select races that give them an advantage over the other players, which the Dragonborn does not.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Really, as weird as it may sound, while personally I never understood the big fascination with Dragons (I;m neutral on Dragonborn) there obviously is a large segment of the gamer population (not here on enworld or WOTC's own forums ironically) that love the idea of playing a dragon-inspired race.

Oh, Dragonborn "fans" are around here. But I must admit I don't like them primarily for their "dragon" nature (though that's nice), I also like them because they give me a "Klingon" vibe. I currently play a Dragonborn Warlord in one campaign, and am quite happy with race and class.
Though I still want to play a Tactical Warlord and a Dragonborn Fighter eventually...

Ultimately, I don't see the need to defend myself against the accusation of power-gaming. For once because I am always power-gaming and I am not ashamed of it, and for other because Dragonborn is not a "power-gamer" class per se. The only class that fully benefits from the synergy of its racial ability score modifiers (and in my 3.x shaped mindset, that's the critical aspect) are Warlords. If someone would ask me for power-gaming advice, I would not per default suggest a Dragonborn, and if he believed it was for any given class, I would recommend reevulating his choice, but if someone just claims Dragonborn are a power-gamers dream come true as a critic against 4E, well, at some point, I get tired of defending myself or an edition of its flaws. I'd prefer to deal with "actual" issues.

 

[Fifth Element]

and I'm fine with being challenged...you asked me to prove it....I have not problem with that.

I responded, but in a forked thread so as not to derail any further.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...te-about-d-d-4th-edition-d-d.html#post4494565