What is wrong with 4E?

[Ydars]

The real problem with 4E is this; it IS an excellent game, that plays very well (although it reads very badly) but it is NOT a replacement for 3.5E. What it is, is a completely different game, both mechanically and philosphically. I, for one, will continue to play both games because they both have some nice features. So in this sense, 4E fails in one of its key design goals, however great a game it actually is.

I think 4E will bring in new players, and is a nice easy game to DM, but I don't like the fact that most of the powers etc have no obvious explanation in the real world. It makes the mechanics intrude too much into the story-telling (how do you explain "healing surges" and what "hitpoints" actually represent now). I know WE might find some explanations for this eventually, but this is actually the job of the games designers.

I also agree with everyone who says the core rulebooks are very light in the rules dept; there are not enough feats, rituals and material for the DM to satisfy the gearheads amongst us, making character builds very limited.

I know they did this to make the game easier to start but they should have done this through a "lite" version rather than making the "lite" version the PHB. Now the game will cost even more because I suspect that the "core" books for 4E will consist of alot of books. I remember not using ANY rules, options or material outside the core 3.5 rulebooks for 4-5 years (and in fact we haven't really used much from them even now). I can't see that being the case for 4E; here the splat books will be required just to make a faintly customisable game, particularly as regards Rituals.

 

[quindia]

I know they did this to make the game easier to start but they should have done this through a "lite" version rather than making the "lite" version the PHB. Now the game will cost even more because I suspect that the "core" books for 4E will consist of alot of books. I remember not using ANY rules, options or material outside the core 3.5 rulebooks for 4-5 years (and in fact we haven't really used much from them even now). I can't see that being the case for 4E; here the splat books will be required just to make a faintly customisable game, particularly as regards Rituals.

I am disappointed by the core books as well. I know there will be piles of books with mountains of options in the future, but I also generally avoid buying all of the splat books. The three core books will be good for a campaign or two, but then the characters will become copies of those that came before. NPC's will be mirrors of the PC's as well.

I like the 4e rules, but I think WotC went out of their way to split up the rules. The fact the Martial Powers book was announced before the rules were even out means they already have lots of options they left out. The magic items should have been left in the DMG and the extra space used to expand the options for the classes. Half of the golems held back for MM2 or maybe DDI, no metallic dragons, missing giants. Yes, I can make most of these myself, but I don't expect to have to do that with a brand new game. The need to cart around arm loads of books will be worse than any previous edition for which I routinely only employed the core books.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Well then Hello Again to you, Wayoftheearth. I hope someday we may be familiar with each-other to skip the formalities.

Yes, I am comparing 4E to previous versions of D&D. I believe that since D&D 4E has the "D&D" brand name all over it, it makes very good sense to do so. The publishers are using the D&D brand name to associate 4E with previous editions of the D&D game that many potential customers know and love. They are, in effect, setting our expectations that this new game will resonant with fans of the existing D&D game.

I was so sick of the lack of function within the "3E" system that I've been playing nigh-diceless (deck-random) Spycraft and/or Spycraft 2E for the past 3 years.

The expectation is what you build. If 3E had ever came close to being a working system I would have played it.

And if you believe what made "D&D" was anything but "Adventures go into places like Dungeons and they face monsters like Dragons; who they fight and then gain Levels and Loot", you are objectively wrong.

I believe there is a spectrum of form versus function.

Its not an opinion thing. My post that you've glossed over already broke down this argument.

At the form extreme of the spectrum would be a perfect game environment without a game system. Everything about it would be described in beautiful, evocative detail, but it wouldn't be much of a game because there would be no rules to govern interaction with it.

Cops and Robbers, right. Except "Cops and Robbers" doesn't have any form until someone actually plays it. The Form is what you make it.

At the function extreme of the spectrum would be a perfect game system without a game environment. It would be abstract and totally perfect, but not much of a game because while it would work perfectly, it wouldn't actually describe anything meaningful.

It's a Participant-molded game. An engine that works for the Cops and Robbers game is still nothing until the Players make it a Cops and Robbers game, at which point it is everything those players want from a Cops and Robbers game.

You're just not making the DC to your Effort check at the moment.

It's my view that the best RPGs are those that are able to find just the right balance between form and function.

And I still think you're wrong, and you've avoided anything but proving my point correct.

 

[Dacileva]

Go look at any paragon path. You'll notice that you get six benefits from doing so: three features, and three powers of varying type.

As a 4e character, you are automagically entitled to a paragon path at 11th level.

In order to actually multiclass (that is, to fill in another base class's name on your paragon path line on your sheet), you must spend four feats, and opt not to take a paragon path at 11th.

Instead, you can choose powers from the secondary class at the levels at which you'd gain paragon powers.

...interesting, did you notice something missing from that?

Oh, right, the three class features that you would've gotten!

Why would you take the level 1-10 abilities from your multiclass instead of taking one of the paragon paths for it?

Wizard with Student of the Sword can take multiclass feats to swap for fighter exploits, then at level 11, instead of taking "Fighter", they can take "Kensei" or "Swordmaster" and get all the Paragon path goodies.

The paragon path straight-class multiclassing is a suboptimal choice.

 

[pawsplay]

In previous editions of D&D, the emphasis was largely on form before function. Skills, feats, spells and so on were described in terms of what they did in the game world. The mechanics of how they worked within the rules was secondary. Sure, many times the rules themselves might have been broken -- but since you knew what the intent was within the game world, you could easily "fix" the rules so that function served form.

In 4E the pendulum has swung the other way. Function reigns supreme. PC feats and powers and so on are described in term of game mechanics.

Sometimes I can't even tell what a power is supposed to be. Numbers happen, figures move, you're on your own as far as describing what just happened.

 

[hong]

Sometimes I can't even tell what a power is supposed to be. Numbers happen, figures move, you're on your own as far as describing what just happened.

Think of it as character building.

 

[Hammerhead]

Think of it as character building.

Back in my day, we used our imagination to describe how the characters powers worked. We didn't need any explicit description of how it actually worked. It got in the way of the role-playing.

 

[Tetsubo]

Two things:

You're comparing 4E D&D to the D&D or other sacred-cow game system you came from.

Instead compare it to an inventive form of Cops and Robbers. You invent a method of conflict resolution and start working up from there. This is a game that is like any other RPG with some Form, in that it is participant-molded experience.

Yet Cops and Robbers is already a better Form of game than anything a company can sell you, on the merit that the players are in absolute control of the pace and storytelling capability.

Hoewver a game without a good Function spends X minutes repairing itself from the Nah-UH Ya-HUH that could rather be built in a better Functioning game.

If you are sacrificing X minutes to things like corner-cases (Grappling), wildly broken systems (polymorph), or Game-Warping optimization holes (multiclassing), the game is already lessened for it. The Form is whatever you had to begin with - X amount of time.

Which ties into my next point-

There is no "pendulum" or "spectrum" of Form vs. Function, because Form is a given for a participant-molded game.

If it is important to determine the location of the Monster's food, than the participant will determine its location. In the same way: Economic systems, world politics, and alternate classes are all the work of the player within a system to create the Form they prefer.

So as long as there is a functionally sound base game for which to ensure the least amount of time lost to Nah-UH Ya-HUH, the Form will be the sum or synergy of all participants.

I think comparing 4E D&D to previous editions is fully warranted. The game is called Dungeons & Dragons. With that name comes thirty years of history. Of which I am a part as I started gaming in 1978. To call a game D&D you bring that history with you. For good or ill.

I for one consider 4E to be D&D in name only. There being almost no similarity with previous editions. I would have much preferred if Wiz-bro had just canceled D&D and called 4E something else entirely. It's sort of like having an entirely new cast of characters on a long running TV series and expecting the audience to just ignore the change.

4E is not aimed at the same demographic as previous editions. To use the name is disingenuous.

 

[Mallus]

I for one consider 4E to be D&D in name only. There being almost no similarity with previous editions.

How similar is "three little booklet" OD&D to 3.5?

4E is not aimed at the same demographic as previous editions. To use the name is disingenuous.

Of course it is, it's being aimed at nerds (the traditional kind, natch). It's not like it's being pitched to NASCAR fans or opera lovers...

 

[malraux]

4E is not aimed at the same demographic as previous editions. To use the name is disingenuous.

I suspect its still aimed at the same demographic as it always was. You're just not in that demographic anymore.