4E is unacceptable

[charcoalninja]

That isn't really a valid argument. The times have changed and so have the expectations. And when the new product can't deliver enough content to be at least comparable to the last version then this is a failure.

To use the PC market as example, do you think the excuse "Its at least more than Pong" is a valid excuse for a game having much less content than its predecessor?

Considering that in the last few editions every melee class was reduced to:
Basic attack every round, while all the casters did the fun stuff, arguing that the edition that finally has Fighters, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues doing as much cool stuff as the pure casters contains "much less content" isn't a leg I'd prefer to stand on.

Why didn't you get Druids and bards? Because the fighters, Rangers, Rogues and Paladins took up as much space as a full blown caster class did in 2nd and 3rd. The game is MORE complete now than ever before, that's why we don't have every class under the sun right away. Each class has vastly more to it, and vastly more interaction and just well everything, than ever before.

There are a lot of archtypes and characters that could not be made with the 3.5 core and there are lots that can't be made with the 4e core. In 3e you couldn't make a melee class that didn't suck. In 4e you can't make summoners and druids. Such is life.

Edit: Considering how well all of the classes mesh together and how well the mechanics are set up to allow pretty much anything you could possibly want, I'm willing to wait on Druids. But then again, I'm used to waiting. After all, when do us Psionic players get to be "core" huh?

 

[thundershot]

Is this thread even necessary? I mean, what does it really accomplish other than provoke opportunity attacks from passing 3.X snipers? "Blah blah blah D&D is dead to me..." I thought the board was doing pretty good the last few days without any potshots at any particular edition.



Chris

 

[Fenes]

There are a lot of archtypes and characters that could not be made with the 3.5 core and there are lots that can't be made with the 4e core. In 3e you couldn't make a melee class that didn't suck. In 4e you can't make summoners and druids. Such is life.

"Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords" solved this.

 

[Grimstaff]

You know folks, adding replies to these whiny, edition-bashing threads just perpetuates them. If you don't add anything to the thread, it will sink, like the dead weight it is. That's why I never post in these threads.

Oh, wait...darn...

 

[Fifth Element]

That isn't really a valid argument. The times have changed and so have the expectations. And when the new product can't deliver enough content to be at least comparable to the last version then this is a failure.

So 3.5 was a failure? It didn't have all the options available from the 3.0 splatbooks. It took time to build up that many options.

And 3.0 was a failure? It didn't have all the options available from the PHBR series, etc.

 

[Delta]

So 3.5 was a failure? It didn't have all the options available from the 3.0 splatbooks. It took time to build up that many options.

And 3.0 was a failure? It didn't have all the options available from the PHBR series, etc.

Compare core-rules to core-rules.

 

[Jack99]

Compare core-rules to core-rules.

Read Derren's post, which FE was replying to. Derren specifically said 4e was a failure because people expect a new edition to have as many options as the last one, towards the end.

 

[mattdm]

I just dont' like that 4e plays slower than 3e. Combats simply take longer and the fact that I get "less playing done" is what bugs me the most. I think to bump up damage or lower hit points would really have been more desirable for me.

In our play experience, combats have been about the same length as in our 3.5 games, and I expect them to get faster once there's less stopping every other round to look up new or changed rules. Much faster, in fact.

 

[Remathilis]

This is Unacceptable!

 

[billd91]

Read Derren's post, which FE was replying to. Derren specifically said 4e was a failure because people expect a new edition to have as many options as the last one, towards the end.

We've read his post and he says nothing of the sort. He doesn't imply that 4e needs to have the same options as the previous edition at the end of its life. He's comparing the expectations of what an edition will deliver compared to earlier editions.
And in that context, I believe he's spot on. 4e does deliver less than its predecessor, core to core.