4E is unacceptable

[AllisterH]

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.

But then the question is,

How do you factor in the upgraded classes like the rogue, paladin and fighter?

 

[MrGrenadine]

The thing that really stupefies me about 4E is how many people bought the books without surveying them or researching them first.

I don't like 4E. So I didn't buy the books.

You know, you're absolutely right. I bought the Core set, and then realized I didn't want to play 4e at all. Darn!

On the other hand, I own every version of the core rulebooks going back to the boxed sets, and there's a weirdly satisfying sense of completeness in owning the latest version.

I just really wish I loved it.

[fingers crossed] Maybe after the game ages a little, and gets some 3p support. [/fingers crossed]

 

[Vocenoctum]

Uh...NO

while I can agree that 4th ed does need some polish, and that I'd have like doh, another 100 pages in the PHB and MM...what's perfect? *nothing*.

My main problem here is;
1) Like many film adaptations, it's not as much what they cut, as them cutting some stuff to add new stuff which doesn't do much for me.
2) The layout in 4e is horrible, IMO. Too much white space, the art (which I don't care for, but don't find horrible like the OP) is badly integrated into the format/text, and the font is a point or three too big.

I remember complaints about some of the expanded formats for monsters/magic items in 3e, and they were, but the 4e stuff just seems padded.

Another design decision was the no-overlap thing, so every fighter power is unique to a fighter, so no reprinting.


But, I'm sure lots of folks think it's great that instead of three column/20 to a page spells they have 2 column/8 to a page powers. (I don't mind that they gave them all different names, but they really did seem to be stretching to find new names.)

I also will always say Attack of Opportunity rather than Opportunity Attack.

 

[billd91]

But then the question is,

How do you factor in the upgraded classes like the rogue, paladin and fighter?

I'm not at all convinced they're upgraded, quite frankly. But deeper options for a few select classes + shallower options for others (cleric and wizard) < broader options as presented by the core of 3.5, in my estimation.

 

[billd91]

2) The layout in 4e is horrible, IMO. Too much white space, the art (which I don't care for, but don't find horrible like the OP) is badly integrated into the format/text, and the font is a point or three too big.

For what it's worth, me not being a particular fan of 4e, I like the layout of the 4e PH. I find the clarity of the presentation and readability leaps and bound better than 3.x. I very much like that the placement of the graphics does not generally cause columns to snake around in irregular ways.

 

[MrGrenadine]

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...

Not arguing with you, just wanted to say that I've heard other folks say this about 3e, too, and I never get bored playing my 3.5 fighter.

I rarely basic attack. I usually Power attack 2, but depending on the target's AC, I'll PA 5 or 10. If the target has a high AC, and is 2-legged, I'll sometimes use Improved Trip with my heavy flail to effectively lower the target's AC by 4, (and let anyone standing nearby take a shot at it as it stands). If we're fighting many foes in a large area, I'll activate my Boots of Speed, so I can get where I need to be most, (otherwise I can only move 20'). If a foes has half as brain, and is focusing on another (less melee-focused) party member, I'll use Goad to attempt to turn the focus back to me.

As for positioning--depending on the terrain, I'll try to put my left side against a wall or a barrier. I prefer narrow gaps that I can fill to slow movement past me, when I can get it, but caltrops are a good way to slow movement in slightly wider openings. I try to sidle up to a couple enemies, so Cleave will kick in, (but not so I'd get flanked). And then there's weapon choice: stick with my bludgeon, or do I have to use a slashing weapon instead? I have other tricks up my sleeve, and there are dozens of other variables, but you get the idea.

So while the others are striking from a distance, casting spells, dealing with traps, healing or whatever their thing is, I'm dealing with dozens of battle field variables, pitting my tactical knowledge against our opponents, and having the time of my life.

Again--not arguing that you should see it my way. Just sayin'.

 

[timbannock]

I for one liked 4e. Every game has problems. So get over it people.

Whether you like 4E or not, this statement is kinda winning. How many games get released that don't need errata? How many games get needed errata as quickly and as often as 4E has?

I like 4E, and considering the number of powers and monsters included in the core rules, the amount of errata is not big at all. 22 pages is a lot, but considering there's about 10 pages worth of white space in there...Well, honestly, I put it all into a word doc and formatted it with Arial 10pt, 2 columns and it's 8 pages....still with a lot of white space. Anyway, you do the math; it's pretty minor.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

If you exclude all of the trap options(dodge, toughness, Monk, multiclass spellcasters ect...) 4E core has more VALID options than 3.5E core did.

 

[Derren]

If you exclude all of the trap options(dodge, toughness, Monk, multiclass spellcasters ect...) 4E core has more VALID options than 3.5E core did.

Wow, so because some options don't lead to the best, minmaxed, result they are traps and not valid? You are aware that D&D is a role playing game?

Many people did play 3E monks and enjoyed it. But I guess they did something wrong. Fact is options are options and just because minmaxers likely won't take them doesn't mean that they are any less valid.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Wow, so because some options don't lead to the best, minmaxed, result they are traps and not valid? You are aware that D&D is a role playing game?

Many people did play 3E monks and enjoyed it. But I guess they did something wrong. Fact is options are options and just because minmaxers likely won't take them doesn't mean that they are any less valid.

So you want to suck? I don't know that many people who actually make it a point to have their characters suck. The ones I've seen try didn't enjoy it playing alongside people who made an effort to play characters who didn't suck.