D&D 4E What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?

[TerraDave]

The "issues" with 4E, in rough chronological order:

*End of print Dragon and Dungeon when they were at a recent peak,

*Highly negative marketing,

*Seeming change for change’s sake,

*No OGL (for 4E) but the crappy GSL,

*Adventures and lack thereof,

*Encounter, gamist, driven metagame that creeped into the actual game,

*Skill challenges and dancing DCs,

*Rituals not really working right,

*Longish combats and mispowered monsters,

*An obsession with balance alongside really obviously strangely unbalanced options,

*bloat, bloAT, and BLOAT,

*Uneven Dragon and Dungeon content,

*Updates, followed, by updates, then even more updates, then updates on the updates…

*Online “tools”,

*Essentials that aren’t,

*Supported by the now standard bad communication,

*Sudden change in approach to new products, with far fewer of them,

………..And the ultimate in craptitude:

*Fortune cards

But its still the game I prefer to DM. And none of the above have to effect your game, at least not very much.

What is so great about other editions? People liked AD&D, including its 3E incarnation. I think that is pretty much it. There is a certain irony to it…

Back to the WotCies, recently I think we have seen a scramble (what in another thread I said might be “gambling for resurrection”) as they have come under pressure, and the results haven’t been great.

This where much of the 5E talk comes from. That, and Mearl’s enigmatic Legend and Lore columns.

 

[Quickleaf]

Fighters used to be feared in combat; now? Not anymore than any other class, and arguably less than strikers.

I agree with a lot of what's been said but this I don't buy. I have a 2nd level fighter (knight) who does 1d10+10 with a broadsword+1 (+8 attack, +10 on opportunity attacks). During a fight I hit a hobgoblin mage for 16 damage and used cleave to kill an adjacent minion. On his turn the hobgoblin mage shifted away and I got an opportunity attack which I used power attack on for 22 damage, and since I'd changed stance to hammer hands I pushed him 1 into our wizard's zone of fire which layer dropped him. Also I had shifted 1 into the hobgoblin mage's unoccupied square and now was adjacent to an artillery minion which also died to my opportunity attack. So in one round I helped take down a mage and dropped 2 minions, in the process protecting my allies from artillery fire.

Sure it's not an obscene DPR but my functionality was pretty damn good for 2nd level. I'm not sure how the classic fighter plays but my essentials knight can change the tide of battle, especially against squishies and minions.

Having played a knight in 3.5e, I found the 4e version more effective.

 

[FireLance]

Fighters used to be feared in combat; now? Not anymore than any other class, and arguably less than strikers.

Odd. I remember it as spellcasters used to be feared in combat.

 

[catastrophic]

Fighters used to be feared in combat; now? Not anymore than any other class, and arguably less than strikers.

Fighters were a laughing stock in 3e, and in 4e, they're a holy terror*. Their defender mechanic is top tier, possibly the best in the game, they have some amazing powr options, and their damage output is also very good.


*Well, secular terror.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fighters were a laughing stock in 3e, and in 4e, they're a holy terror*. Their defender mechanic is top tier, possibly the best in the game, they have some amazing powr options, and their damage output is also very good.


*Well, secular terror.

Exactly. Any statement that begins with "Fighter's used to be great..." is like the dairy farmer down the road complaining that his cows have shed their wings.

No, I think the real 'problem' with 4e is simply that everyone got used to the huge issues with everything that came before it. Lets face it, mechanically OD&D was kind of a turkey. It had no competition and as a first cut at making an RPG it certainly wasn't bad, but there was nothing genius about the design and much to criticize. It was good enough though, and people got used to the gaping flaws or else went and played other things.

Now, 4e is overall a better system, but you never get everything exactly right on the first cut and it really is a whole new game. I look at it and it is obvious that it was a good solid design but it didn't quite hit the mark dead on. It was inevitable though, and people aren't used to the issues so they bitch about it and imagine that older editions were 'better' when in reality they were worse but you just learned to live with it.

Read Mearls' latest column that went up today. I don't really quite agree with his analysis of the mechanics, but he does at least understand half of the issues.

 

[Ulrick]

4e basically goes against almost my entire gaming philosophy. I like a system that can be tweaked with minimal effort, character classes that are distinct (in 4e everybody has "supernatural" powers), where rewards are earned and not just expected, and that builds upon earlier traditions. After playing 3.0/3.5e, I was looking forward to 4e because people were saying it was an easier game to DM. But...

1. Combats take a long time (the standard time is an hour).

2. Nearly all abilities are catered toward combat (yeah, I know about rituals)

2. It plays like a videogame (yes, I know that's a cliche critique).

3. Each character seems like a one trick pony with their abilities.

4. DDI, of course, was a dissappointment--and why should I need internet access to play a game

5. 4e slaughtered a lot of sacred cows to make everything have a semblence of fairness.

6. It's difficult to have character death in 4e because of all the healing a character can have access to.

7. Interrupt powers. Don't you know its rude to interrupt?

I used to be more upset with 4e because I wasted 3 months trying to run a homebrew campaign with it. I eventually just got bored with it. And I don't like that it has caused a great rift within the gaming community. But then again, I don't think 4e was supposed be targeting my Generation X/Y demographic, but was geared toward the millennial generation. So obviously I won't like it, the younger generation has different tastes than I do. (But that is another topic for another time).

 

[Holy Bovine]

I like 4e, but for me the greatest failing is lack of quality adventures.

For me, the adventure is the heart of D&D and always has been. When I have fond memories of previous versions, I'm usually recalling some specific exciting adventure.

A couple delves in Dungeon every month just doesn't cut it for me. I like reading adventures almost as much as I like playing them.

Oh my a thousand times this. Every edition has been, right or wrong, define to a large extent by the adventures put out with it. 1E had the whole Against the Giants/Drow series, the Tomb of Horrors/White Plume Mt 'S' series. 2E had things like Night Below & Dragon Mountain. 3E had Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. And 4E has.....what? I can't think of any WotC produced module that comes close to any of these for 4E. Damned shame.

 

[C4]

I've been away from the game for awhle but will be starting up a new 4th edition campaign tonight with a few close friends. Naturally I've been browsing a number of forums and new products to get a feel for what's new since I left. (Right before Essentials was released IIRC)

Welcome back!

Now there's been some animosity towards 4th edition since before it was ever released, that's normal with every new edition, but the amount of hate I've come across on this and other forums seems to be at a level I've never seen before. So I've been searching to find out why and I'm still confused. Here seems to be the main issues I've come across in some form or another so far:

If there's more hate now than before you left, it's because 4e has outgrown its first few euphoric years. It happens with every edition: love, familiarity, hate and then the next edition is born.

Essentials Fallout

This was what I imagined to be the culprit before I even left the last time. I myself was wary of what Essentials was going to do to 4E, but from what I've seen so far it really does seem to be an option for 4E which you can easily leave out of your campaigns. For myself, I'm happy to leave it in if my players want to try out one of the class variants as the CB seems to be able to take care of all the dirty work for me.

So my question here is: Was it really that bad? Did it kill 4E?

No, and no. Honestly, I don't like Essentials and I don't allow it in my game, but it's not the antichrist that some 4e gamers make it out to be. The idea that it's 'killing' anything is preposterous.

DDI Support

I've been playing around in my DDI Toolbox since I've returned getting a feel for what's changed. I'm a little disappointed that the CB & AT's are online only now. I'm quite irritated actually by the removal of the "Copy to RTF" function the Monster Builder allowed me before which made converting modules/monsters so much easier.

The consensus seems to be that the newer versions have less functionality than the old... and? Anything else? I agree this is disheartening but not enough to generate so much hate? Right?

You would think, wouldn't you? I don't think the CB transition is doing 4e any favors though.

4E is Dead - 5E on the horizon?

For one reason or another, this usually goes un-defended but people simply claim it's dead in passing as if it's a foregone conclusion. Occasionally people chime in to say they're expecting 5th edition to be coming out sometime in the next year or two so they've lost interest in 4E.

I just don't understand this kind of position at all, but it's really part of the reason I've made this thread, to get a better idea of why people think the game sucks so much nowadays.

It's just part of the edition treadmill. Gamers are constantly demanding new material, so TSR/WotC gives it to them. But there's only so much material they can write before ideas start drying up and gamers start complaining.

Editions are like spouses; no matter how sweet they are at the start, eventually some of those endearing little habits become annoying. And with the divorce rate how it is...edition hate and change is inevitable. That said, 4e won't be replaced for a few more years. "5e is right around the corner!" is either wishful thinking or doomsaying.

<Insert your pet system here> is so much better so 4E sucks

I'm by no means a D&D fanboy. I've thought about trying Pathfinder, as I have a fondness for the 3.x ruleset and that edition of D&D got the most play out of me of all previous editions. If anything I'm attracted to their adventure paths so I've thought long and hard as to whether I'd be willing to switch over. I like both systems. I'm not sure if it's taboo around here but I really like 4th edition's powers system but I'm also nostalgic for the 3.x days. I just don't have the time for two systems though with work, family and all my other hobbies so I really think the most likely outcome here is me converting adventure path stuff to 4E in the long run.

I know what you mean. I play 4e almost exclusively, but I still love to tinker with 3e. As if I can finally fix it, if I find just the right house rules. It's a sick love-hate relationship.

Anyway, PF's success won't 'kill' D&D either. In a few years, Paizo will come out with a new PF edition -- which will probably be an actual new game. (Because honestly, PF is a D&D [sub-]edition in all but name.) Just one more rpg publisher; nothing worth arguing over.

Final Thoughts

I guess what I'd really like to hear is some constructive criticism on why 4th edition "sucks". If you used to play what made you stop? If you're thinking of leaving the system or have found yourself playing less lately why is that? (Only if the reason relates to some aspect(s) of the system that you don't like please.)

Nothing anyone can say will make me change my mind at this point, that's not what I'm looking for with writing this but I am really interested in getting and overview of how WotC has handled this edition and the details on what people dislike the most.

I play my own 4e clone-compilation, which is less different from 4e than PF is from 3.5. But since you asked, here are the major fixes I've added to correct what I don't like about 4e:

Feat taxes are replaced with expert bonuses. (If you're one of those who believes the math was just fine before Taxpertise, it's a simple matter to say "no expert bonuses in my game".)

Instead of racial stat boosts, every class gets two training boosts. I don't like players feeling pigeonholed by that first line of every race entry.

Saves are rolled on the attacker's turn, and bonus saves can end most effects. (Even UENT effects.) This makes (save ends) consistently better than UENT.

I added an inherent bonus rule that consistently works.

I replaced hybriding and MC feats with my own MC feats that combine the best of both.

 

[Pentius]

Majin, we're on the Internet here. Anger, hate, fear, and doomsaying are all post-scarcity.

 

[Argyle King]

Exactly. Any statement that begins with "Fighter's used to be great..." is like the dairy farmer down the road complaining that his cows have shed their wings.

No, I think the real 'problem' with 4e is simply that everyone got used to the huge issues with everything that came before it. Lets face it, mechanically OD&D was kind of a turkey. It had no competition and as a first cut at making an RPG it certainly wasn't bad, but there was nothing genius about the design and much to criticize. It was good enough though, and people got used to the gaping flaws or else went and played other things.

Now, 4e is overall a better system, but you never get everything exactly right on the first cut and it really is a whole new game. I look at it and it is obvious that it was a good solid design but it didn't quite hit the mark dead on. It was inevitable though, and people aren't used to the issues so they bitch about it and imagine that older editions were 'better' when in reality they were worse but you just learned to live with it.

Read Mearls' latest column that went up today. I don't really quite agree with his analysis of the mechanics, but he does at least understand half of the issues.

I'm trying to decide if I agree with this or not. I think -to an extent- I do. However, I am also aware that s4E is honestly what prompted me to move beyond D&D and try other rpgs. I think 4th Edition does a lot of things right, but there are some things it does (in my opinion) wrong which I'll never get used to.