D&D 4E Reply if you love 4e

[pemerton]

monsters have crunch that matches their fluff. Arguably, for the first time in the history of D&D, monsters actually play differently and in a manner consistent with their description. Sure, you can throw in descriptions in other editions but in 4E it's part of the mechanics.

This is one of the things I like best about 4e. Worlds and Monsters promised it, and the rules delivered.

One of the most seriously retarded decisions WotC made with Essentials was dropping the PHB.

I think MV and the Rules Compendium are great. But the player and GM books, with their ridiculous but partial repetition of RC content, are hopeless. The actual player-side content (powers and feats) I don't mind, but it is padded out with needless (and sometimes contradictory) flavour text that, for me at least, adds nothing to the game. If the feat or power is any good in its design then its flavour will emerge in play, much like the monsters!

A bigger issue in my view extends beyond Essentials to the general editorial approach - a failure to be explicit about new feats or powers substituting for earlier versions that have been found to be underpowered. This is not just an Essentials issue (eg the new defence feats, or Resilience vs the human +1 feat bonus to saves in the PHB) but comes up in other areas as well (eg Divine Power has a feat for paladins - I think that enhances LoH - that makes a PHB feat completely redundant).

This sort of editorial silence is fine in a game like Magic, where understanding all the nuances of different releases is part of player skill, but just undermines the clarity and usability of RPG PC-build rules.

This thread was particularly brutal.

Maybe you linked to the wrong thread? Or were being ironic and I misunderstood? In any event, speaking non-ironically, I didn't notice any brutality on that thread - it doesn't hold a candle to the still-active Fighters vs Casters thread on this board, for instance. Or either of the "why balance is bad" threads. Which are themselves far tamer than similar threads I've seen over the past 6 or so years.

I live in one of the most Third World parts of a Third World country without a functioning legal system. It's not like they can do anything to me....

This one of the top contributions I've seen to the various IP debates that have gone on on these boards over the years!

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm actively playing 4e and will hopefully continue to do so for at least a few more years. Imho, it's the best of all D&D editions so far (including what I've seen of D&D Next).
It's sad indeed that official support is basically over.

 

[Bluenose]

I'm actively playing 4e and will hopefully continue to do so for at least a few more years. Imho, it's the best of all D&D editions so far (including what I've seen of D&D Next).
It's sad indeed that official support is basically over.

For now, at least. Welcome to my world, where my favourite edition of a game was unsupported for 21 years before making a surprise comeback in another companies hands. There may be hope for 4e, or something very close to it, yet.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I also love how 4E made me challenge all my assumptions about how to run, play, and even create an RPG. I suppose there's a simulationist vs gamist argument to be made there but I have sworn an oath to never get involved in any thread where "simulationist" and "gamist" or similar terms are a topic of discussion. Those things are worse than edition wars. Suffice to say, 4E made me rethink RPGs and has helped me embrace new things. It really was a paradigm shift (and shifter).

(snip) I think MV and the Rules Compendium are great. But the player and GM books, with their ridiculous but partial repetition of RC content, are hopeless. The actual player-side content (powers and feats) I don't mind, but it is padded out with needless (and sometimes contradictory) flavour text that, for me at least, adds nothing to the game. If the feat or power is any good in its design then its flavour will emerge in play, much like the monsters!

A bigger issue in my view extends beyond Essentials to the general editorial approach - a failure to be explicit about new feats or powers substituting for earlier versions that have been found to be underpowered. This is not just an Essentials issue (eg the new defence feats, or Resilience vs the human +1 feat bonus to saves in the PHB) but comes up in other areas as well (eg Divine Power has a feat for paladins - I think that enhances LoH - that makes a PHB feat completely redundant).

This sort of editorial silence is fine in a game like Magic, where understanding all the nuances of different releases is part of player skill, but just undermines the clarity and usability of RPG PC-build rules. (snip)

Agreed. That's a better analysis of the situation than me simply saying there was no PHB.

I am sorely tempted at some point in my semi-retirement to start compiling and editing all of the 4E material into new PDFs for my own use - and that would involve ditching the obsolete feats, for example - but I still have too many interesting things to do each day to consider this.

(snip) This one of the top contributions I've seen to the various IP debates that have gone on on these boards over the years!

Although your snipped quote neglected to include the part where I state that I am still a subscriber to DDi in order to have the legally-available DDi tools.

Nevertheless, there are advantages to effectively not having a legal system and for having internet access via an anonymously-purchased sim card....

PS: Your reputation comment really made me laugh! Thanks.

 

[ChampaignSupernova]

I can absolutely understand if someone doesn't like 4e, but the bad press it gets from some circles is super overboard.

Yeah, that's what I am getting out of all this. It's one thing, if someone says I just don't like it. And it does look like it was a bit different in some aspects as to what we were used to, but it certainly seems as a viable option for those not content to stay with 3.0/3.5.

 

[pemerton]

my favourite edition of a game was unsupported for 21 years before making a surprise comeback in another companies hands

2nd ed Runequest?

 

[Askaval30]

loves me some 4th ed!

 

[Aenghus]

4e is my favourite D&D edition by far, I love how transparent and easy to run it is. It has flaws, like everything, but the flaws also tend to be transparent, not obscured.

I'm on my third 4e campaign, at 17th level now and planning to keep running it while my players are interested.

From the very start of the hobby there has been a tension between those who crave more definitive, clear, objective and categoric effect-based rules and those who prefer more subjective ad-hoc rulings. I prefer the former and 4e is the closest edition of D&D to give me what I want.

 

[Bluenose]

2nd ed Runequest?

No, actually. Classic Traveller.

To explain, Classic Traveller's successor editions (MegaTraveller, T:NE (the flamewar edition), T4, GURPS Traveller, T20) didn't give me the same feeling in play that Classic Traveller did. I enjoyed them, somewhat, but not the same way. Mongoose Traveller is the second coming to me, as while there are changes they're not ones I find make the game feel different. With Runequest, what I miss from 2nd edition is some of the awesome support material, Cults of Prax or Trollpak being examples, rather than the rules. I don't feel any great desire to get the rules back to 2e, because I don't find the current versions really make much of a difference to how I feel about the game.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Maybe you linked to the wrong thread? Or were being ironic and I misunderstood?

That was irony for the folks who actually went to read it. Thanks for noticing.