D&D 4E What's Wrong With 4e Simply Put

[pawsplay]

I'm not new to the game. I've played through all the editions of the game. I've seen the good and the bad of all the editions. I always found that every edition has been better than the previous ones. So, here we go:

Well, nothing's stopping you from adhering to some of the older rules and flavor. You can have all the demons and devils you want. I prefer the Erinyes to remain the "Goddesses of Punishment" as they were in Greek mythology anyway, but that's just my personal opinion. The reshuffle you are mentioning means little, if anything, to me.

It would mean I would have to convert a lot of creatures that have appeared in my recent campaign if I wanted to keep running it. Which the designers have basically said, "Don't bother, it won't work." The succubi issue is not so big, since I can simply state that their are lawful succubi in my world on the other time, but the other changes are annoying.

I welcome the eladrin. I've been playing the grey elves/high elves off as a much more magically inclined, fey-like breed anyway. The new edition makes that distinction clear and even. Same with drow (they've been apart from their elven cousins for so long, they're like a different species).

So you consider making elves less magical an improvement? You think it's better that many if not most pre-4e elven fighter-mages would make more sense as eladrin in the new edition?

The new planar setup actually works better for my world. However, whatever planar set up you want will be fine. You don't need to adhere to the DMG completely.

True, true. Of course, I cut my teeth on BECMI D&D, so elemental planes are the last things I would get rid of. I don't find the new cosmology fresh, since with:

- Devils being fallen angels hiding out in their special sanctuary
- Demons being forces of destruction
- Elementals coming from a place of primal elemental energy

the new cosmology bears a marked resemblance to the Talislanta cosmology which I have been familiar with for some twenty years now.

Dungeons & Dragons is about telling a good story with your friends, not all about those tiny rules that people for some reason cling to like some sort of holy grail. Sure, the rules on demons and devil are different for the core game: who cares? Do what you want! It's your world to play around in! You don't like not using the Great Wheel? Use the Great Wheel!

I didn't even mention the Great Wheel.

Stereotype much? Should I mention I've played dozens of non D&D games and I'm a semi-pro game designer? I don't need your encouragement to "do what I want."

You don't like the fact that wizards get at will spells? Um... have you read much good fantasy? A lot of mages have "at will" powers.

... in bad fantasy. Seriously, even Jedi can't keep the same trick going all day.

What have I read? Oh, how about Corum, Lord of the Rings, Simarillion, Rhialto the Marvelous, Three Hearts and Three Lions, the Broken Sword, Swords Against Deviltry, The Deed of Pakenarrion, The Hero and the Crown, the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Warlock in Spite of Himself, the Compleat Enchanter, the Unbeheaded King, With a Single Spell, ...

Perhaps I should mention I used to be a columnist at RPG.net and wrote this:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre31mar03.html
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre24apr03.html
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre26nov03.html
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre04aug04.html

so don't patronize me with "read a book sometimes."

If you don't like using tieflings as a core race, then don't use them. Monster stat blocks have been cropped, yes... but do you really want to know how many ranks in "Use Rope" a
balor has?

That's an easy one... balor aren't trained in Use Rope. But if I needed to know, I'd hope I'd be able to come up with the ansswer.

4e may not be your father's so-called Oldsmobile, true, but here's the thing: My dad owned an Oldsmobile for a long time, and it looked horrible. It chugged gas, it was a long, troublesome ordeal to get anywhere, it leaked oil, it leaked coolant, and when I used to drive it to school, people would actually give me a hard time about it. The old editions could be seen as such. They have their own set of problems. Now, you're being given the chance to drive the new 2008 model, and there seem to be a lot of people saying "No, I liked driving the old clunker better." Bah!

Maybe the new 2008 model looks like a clunker, that has replaced a steel frame with unibody construction. Whatever. I think a better metaphor would be a car company phasing out a model you know and like, and simultaneously debuting a new model, which is nothing that appeals to you in concept.

As for the people who say things about how "4e is not 3e" or that "this edition was way better than this one" or whatever... Get over yourselves. No D&D book ever gets outmoded/outdated 100%. I still use the 2nd Edition Book of Artifacts in my 3.5 campaign. I still use 1st edition adventures when I'm feeling a little lazy and don't want to come up with my own. I've seen a ton of changes between all the editions, and have enjoyed each more than the last. I'm sure 4e will be even more fantastic, and with a little creative DM and player action, it'll be the most awesome D&D experience yet. Be creative, have some fun, play the game, give it a chance. You might have some fun by accident.

Oh, right. Because I don't know how to have fun, right? Good one, there.

Once again I seem to be doing something wrong. Not only do I like mind flayers and ogre mages as written in the MM and use them in my games, but I'm still playing 3.5 and enjoying it. I don't find it to be a "clunker" at all. It has its flaws, but 3.5 is a classic game. For 4e to out-do it, 4e would have to first attempt to do the things 3.5 does.

This tielfling-warlock-Nine Swallows Drunkenly Lolling Emerald Whisper Strike-gnomes and frost giants will be included in exciting new EXPANSION SOURCEBOOKS which will all be core (even Monster Manual XII) stuff... just is not a continuation of the game I became interested in.

I simply cannot imagine dropping 3.5 for 4e as it currently appears to me. If I play 4e, it will definitely be as a new game on its terms, and despite, not because of, most of the changes I have heard about so far.

 

[Deekin]

Um, no. In fantasy source material, spells are precious. D&D wizards, with their dozens of spells a day, actually cast a lot MORE spells than most fantasy mages. Further, "Vancian" refers to the writings of Jack Vance, who was a strong influence on D&D ("Excellent Prismatic Spray").

Depends on your source material. The stuff I read has wizards tossing around minor effects all day, but having really big effects be limited. (Hey, look at that! That's what 4e is doing.)

The mechanics are horrible and wonky, the numbers are too big, and some of the unintended consequences are ridicululous (like a non-magical technique being used to cut an adamantine wall in half in one stroke).

I don't get how you can think the mechanics are horrible and wonky. They are basically spell slots that you can refresh without waiting 8 hours, but can't change out your preped spells. Except for Crusaders. They are wonky.

The numbers are smaller than wizards. A 3rd level manuver with a greatsword might deal 6d6+1.5Str damage vs a wizards 5d6 fireball. You may point out that the strike deals more damage, but that is to a single target, while fireball hits everything in a 20 ft burst, possibly dealing that 5d6 to ten or more targets, wich raises the damage to 50d6.

Manuvers, while non-magical, are still Extraordinary abilities.
Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

It's the same thing as a rouge in a sealed 10x10x10ft room completely avoiding the 20ft radius fireball.

I don't have any fear about 4e somehow "ruining" my 3.5, I'm just perturbed by a number of things about 4e. Mainly, I'm annoyed that 3.5 source material is going to be kindling if you want to use 4e source material, and WotC has decided to throw their clout behind what looks to be an ill-conceived version of the game, IMO.

Depends on the material. complaining that you can't use 3.5 mechanics in 4th is stupid, akin to complaining you can't play N64 games on a Gamecube. On the other hand, fluff is always useful.

Unlike many people, I do not have confidence that 4e will be better than previous editions; I think it will be different than 3.5, but probably not in ways I like, and definitely in some ways I do not like. 3e brought me back to D&D; 4e will probably not attract me.

Just make sure to at least give it a look over before you condemn it based on it's cover.

For all its faults, 3.5 reflects a world, a game philosophy, an aesthetic I can relate to. 4e seems intent on tossing game world logic on its ear, special-casing everything, and abandoning any remaining shreds of medieval romance and real world mythology. I see D&D becoming a sort of tabletop version of Final Fantasy, where characters have "at will" special attacks, high level fighters have special attack powers, and things exist in whatever abundance is dictated by game play, not by what makes sense. Can you imagine a world where someone, anyone had unlimited healing, even if limited to certain circumstances? It would be as different from a traditional D&D world as GURPS Transhuman Space is different from Buck Rogers.

I don't see an game world logic being tossed around. The Relms is being reset, and Eberron dosn't have that much set around magic.

As for Special-casing, where do you see that?

3rd ed has never had any shreads of medieval romance and real world mythology, aside from a few names, nor has it ever made sense. We don't know if anyone has unlimited healing, and I don't get the complaint about high level powers. Do you want the Fighter to be restricted to real life when the Wizard can grant himself wishes?

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Um, no. In fantasy source material, spells are precious. D&D wizards, with their dozens of spells a day, actually cast a lot MORE spells than most fantasy mages. Further, "Vancian" refers to the writings of Jack Vance, who was a strong influence on D&D ("Excellent Prismatic Spray").

Though I'm curious if that actually applies to the sort of fantasy source material new players will be familiar with or just the old stuff, and I have a feeling most fantasy fiction mages face less encounters and challenges over the course of a day than D&D wizards, let's assume it's otherwise true. How often in fantasy material does the "Well, let's camp here, and tomorrow I can magic up a solution to this problem, since I actually have full access to the spell we need but I didn't guess well enough while preparing my spells" issue come up, since we're making source material the arbiter of what's a good magic system?

For all its faults, 3.5 reflects a world, a game philosophy, an aesthetic I can relate to. 4e seems intent on tossing game world logic on its ear, special-casing everything, and abandoning any remaining shreds of medieval romance and real world mythology.

And yet, many would say the faults of 3.x are precisely those you attribute to 4e. You're an edition behind but certainly in common company.

I see D&D becoming a sort of tabletop version of Final Fantasy, where characters have "at will" special attacks, high level fighters have special attack powers, and things exist in whatever abundance is dictated by game play, not by what makes sense.

Damn kids and their mp3 video game books. In my day we got one spell at first level and we were grateful to have it!
And that last thing? That's a worldbuilding issue. If it actually becomes a problem, rather than being a piece of atmosphere plummeting to earth, you should speak to your DM about your desire for a more verisimilitudinous world.

Can you imagine a world where someone, anyone had unlimited healing, even if limited to certain circumstances? It would be as different from a traditional D&D world as GURPS Transhuman Space is different from Buck Rogers.

Or a world where someone could be a bard at character creation? Maybe a world where clerics don't have to prepare healing spells in advance? What about one where arcane magic robs the world around you of life unless you take careful steps to prevent it? Ooh, or a world without mind flayers or gnomes or demi-humans that are clerics.

Shorter answer: Yes, and a good deal easier than one in which your god understands it's about the fate of all creation, but you're out of cleric spells for the day, so now you all have to die because the Gygaxian Codex says This Is How The World Works, And Dying Because You're Out Of Spells Is Good For You.


The campaign model envisioned for 1e (a single (or in some rare cases multiple co-operative) DM(s), large numbers of players sharing a continuous world and competing for wealth and status therein - why do you think they make a huge deal about timekeeping?) no longer applies, and it'll be nice to see an edition that recognizes that.

 

[Testament]

Does anyone else smell gasoline?

Cute, but hardly answers the fact that retcon is impossible when there is no con to begin with.

The mechanics are horrible and wonky, the numbers are too big, and some of the unintended consequences are ridicululous (like a non-magical technique being used to cut an adamantine wall in half in one stroke).

That's the least of my concerns at that level, considering what the cleric and wizard are capable of doing about 5 levels earlier. And I fail to see anything horrible or wonky about the mechanics, excluding the Crusader.

<snip> It would be as different from a traditional D&D world as GURPS Transhuman Space is different from Buck Rogers.

Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Midnight, Arcanis, Iron Kingdoms...

Traditional D&D world? The concept is laughable to me to begin with.

 

[WhatGravitas]

...like a non-magical technique being used to cut an adamantine wall in half in one stroke.

You mean like the stuff Barbarians can do with Power Attack? And their non-magical rage? I also feel that the Bo9S-flavour is very... specific, and doesn't appeal very much to me either. But the mechanics are, with the exception of one or two stinkers (WRT and the Jump check one) pretty good. They're just working closer to their optimum, straight out of the box, and don't need as much tweaking to get the best out of it, while the core melee classes... need some extra thought.

Cheers, LT.

 

[BBQ]

Woo, pawsplay... sounds like I may have struck a nerve. Sorry if you misconstrue the intention of my last post.

I'm not patronizing you with any "read a book sometime" style comment. I am merely responding with my own thoughts. I've read some great books involving mages that have "at will" powers. Granted, there are a lot of bad ones out there too, but it's all a matter of opinion, right? The same goes for any genre. I've read a lot of terrible western novels, but I've read some fantastic ones too. Same goes for Renaissance drama, detective novels, etc.

Perhaps my "You might have some fun by accident" comment was a bit pithy, and I apologize.

Also, I should point out, upon further reflection: as long as the vehicle gets you from point A (good story) to point B (fun with friends), it doesn't matter if you're driving the old clunker or the shiny new vehicle. I just think (my own opinion) that the new edition will be the best edition yet, I'm excited for it, and I was attempting to respond to some of the criticisms which have been constantly cropping up about it. I'm not a professional reviewer, I'm not a writing consultant, I'm not an author... hell, I'm not even a really clever fellow, most of the time. I'm just a gamer, I'm just a fan, and that's all that I am.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

What's wrong with 4e is that people seem to be taking what they like or dislike in 3.* and earlier editions as obvious universals, and demanding that a game aimed for a wide audience, specifically including new gamers - should cater to their personal preferences in terms of both crunch and fluff.

 

[Betote]

If the 4e changes allow me to use the game as a generic fantasy game rule set, I will be thrilled. If the fluff changes cast aside decades of outlandish junk that has glued itself to the game like barnacles on a ship's hull I am all for it. Who the hell actually DMs or plays D&D in the World of Dungeons and Dragons anyway where all the fluff/lore is used out of the core book as it is anyway? I have never known a DM outside of a 13yr old just learning how to DM who does this kind of thing.

I for one want D&D not as a generic fantasy game rule set (that, to me, would be RuneQuest, or even True20), but a D&D-fantasy game rule set.

The thing is, D&D has established a lot of clichés like beholders, mindflayers, prysmatic/metallic/gem dragons, alignments, Xd6-damage fireballs, Vancian spellcasters, etc. which I actually like to see when I'm playing a D&D game. Fortunately, there's a lot of other games out there to get your generic fantasy, even d20 games. What I wouldn't like about 4E would be it becoming just another generic fantasy game, leaving no space for me to play a D&D-fantasy game. Fortunately, my 3.5 and HackMaster books won't burn away when 4E comes out, so I'll still have that option available

 

[Sundragon2012]

I for one want D&D not as a generic fantasy game rule set (that, to me, would be RuneQuest, or even True20), but a D&D-fantasy game rule set.

The thing is, D&D has established a lot of clichés like beholders, mindflayers, prysmatic/metallic/gem dragons, alignments, Xd6-damage fireballs, Vancian spellcasters, etc. which I actually like to see when I'm playing a D&D game. Fortunately, there's a lot of other games out there to get your generic fantasy, even d20 games. What I wouldn't like about 4E would be it becoming just another generic fantasy game, leaving no space for me to play a D&D-fantasy game. Fortunately, my 3.5 and HackMaster books won't burn away when 4E comes out, so I'll still have that option available

Many of the best non vanilla settings throughout the history of D&D such as Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Midnight, Ravenloft, etc. surgically remove D&Disms to allow for the setting to actually have a personality unlike Greyhawk (whatever the heck that is nowadays) or the Forgotten Realms (which is at variance with many core assumptions). D&Disms such as all wizards tossing around fireballs, Vancian magic, beholders, illithids, spider kissing drow, dragon-kin kobolds and kitchen-sink fantasy belong in vanilla D&D settings but need to be removed, when necessary, from both published settings and homebrews that desire a certain atmosphere.

So I really don't understand why this D&D genre is so valued when so many published and homebrewed settings remove D&Disms to preserve their unique character. Maybe more people play on Greyhawk and FR than even realize it.


Sundragon

 

[Seeten]

Changes I already resent:
- Reshuffling demons and devils

Love it. Especially love making my favorite demoness lawful evil, because now I can fit it into parties without foolishness. Chaotic Evil = retarded.

- At will magics for wizards

Love it. Something to do beyond shooting a crossbow? Great.

- Eladrin

Love it. I love high fantasy and it isnt much higher than magical good races.

- Virtually anything related to the Book of Nine Swords

I love the book of nine swords. I love having people with swords that arent just fodder for the all power spellcasters.

- Stripping hit dice/type information out of monsters (why not just simplify it?)

I won't lie, this one I couldnt care less about either way.

- Stripping iconic monsters from the MM

They will all go back into one of the MM's. Do them over time? Do them all at once? Whatever.

- Eladrin
- And the whole elf retcon that resulted in the appearance of the eladrin
- Retcons in general

Retcons? I dont need a retcon. New campaigns are easy to start. Paizo and wotc make adventure paths making this even easier. Asked and answered for the first one.

- Tieflings as a core race, rather than a rare monster

Tieflings are my favorite race, once the -2 cha is stripped. Making them core is the best part of 4e.

- Invalidating the Fiendish Codeces

I'll survive this one, worst case scenario, I guess, someone gets paid to write a new book, and we all spend another 30 bucks. I enjoyed the first two for what they were, and fluff changes never stress me out. I can refluff, or unfluff, whenever I like, and use stats for/from something else, if I need to.

- Changing the damage of fireball. Why?

It was time. Our DM is SO sick of hearing, "I fireball the crowd" that he pregenned our characters and make the specialist transmuter take evocation as his banned school. Maybe that says something to you. Maybe not.

One man's vinegar is another man's wine, I guess. I'm gonna grab a wheel of cheese and see how this plays out.