Forked Thread: Name exactly what 4E is "missing"

[El Mahdi]

At least the Fifth Element dude has the cajones to say he hasn't played 4e, the rest of the replies sound like they haven't really played the game. . .

I normally don't prefix every post I make with "Hi, I'm so-and-so, and I've never played 4E". I don't feel that's necessary. If someone wants to know the peculiars about me, then they can read the "About Me" portion of my profile.

As to cajones, I don't know about the rest of the people on here, but I can guarantee you there are a good number of people, scattered throughout many parts of this world, that could vouch for my having them.

But, to make this easy for you, I haven't played 4E. I've read the rules. (I'm actually a pretty competent reader, as I would imagine most people on ENWorld are, and I do own the three core 4E books, and have read them. I won't disregard a good resource, even if I don't play the system.) I've read a lot of games and game systems rules. I've played a lot of games and systems. Because of my experience, I can understand how the game will play and feel, for me, by reading those rules. Add to that the anecdotal information provided by reading how the game feels for others, and I have a very good understanding of how it will run.

I and many others don't deny that 4E plays fast, and simple, and very fun - for those who like 4E. For those who don't, for those who feel 4E has something missing, it doesn't play "fun".

Edit: Also, just because someones opinions, thoughts or feelings don't jive with "your" idea of common sense, that doesn't make then non-sensical. Common Sense should tell a person that nobody knows everything, and their way isn't necesarily the right or wrong way.

 

[Derro]

At least the Fifth Element dude has the cajones to say he hasn't played 4e, the rest of the replies sound like they haven't really played the game.

I've played enough 4e to isolate what I don't like. And what I don't like is a major part of being on the player's side of the screen. There's plenty of stuff I do like but it'll never get used because I'm not going to invest my time and money in mastering a system that doesn't work for me on many major levels.

If you don't want a dragon to be tripped, role-play it. If you think the rulebooks need more common sense... you're the DM! Your job is to be the common sense.

Some people think cucumbers are better pickled? I don't see how you role-play a dragon not being tripped. The common language of any game is the rules. Rules and role-playing are not the same thing. If a player makes an assumption that they can perform a task or action based on the rules and the DM demands something else then the common language has broken down. You can't excuse poorly wrought language by saying that it can be clarified. The product needs to be finished not a work in progress otherwise it is being consumed under an air of dishonesty.

If you thought the 3e core books had varied attack patterns and combat options and quick combats (early, yes they were fast; mid and late, no)... I think you're memory has tricked you.

Disarm, sunder, over-run, two-weapon fighting, fighting defensively, total defense, grapple (problematic though it was), bullrush, feint, trip.

Now I'm not saying that none of these options are available in 4e but they are all available in 3e without artificial and arbitrary class or use limitations.

I hear a lot of griping and not a lot of... I hear a lot of fluff, and not a lot of crunch.

I'll grant the PHB might be lacking options, but the Class section is a huge chunk of the book, and the design space is obviously wiiiide open. We'll have an Illusionist style spellcaster soon enough, and a Summoner too, heck, maybe even a Necromancer.

That is an argument lacking foundation. The point of this thread is that 4e lacks certain things. It is not a defense to say the missing elements are coming down the pike. The point is that the game is incomplete. Many fantasy archetypes are missing or poorly represented (I'm looking at you, Barbarian) and the sense of incompleteness is a problem for people that like D&D but want to play a complete game that fulfills their needs.

Some complained about the lack of fluff, then others complained the fluff in the Barbarian class ruined it. LOL.

I think the lack of fluff complaints are directed toward monsters, mainly. That is a valid argument since monster fluff is directed toward the DM for purposes of inspiration. Since 4e is re-marketing D&D as an entry level game suitable for new players, and presumably new DMs, this lack of inspirational material is vexing. Saying that ecologies and the like are available through DDI or Dragon does nothing but re-affirm the statement that the game is incomplete.

Complaints around the Barbarian fluff are centered around the fact that the Barbarian is representational of one narrow niche of what the Barbarian could be. I'm not a big fan of implied fluff. The Primal power source is obviously mystical. That may not sit well with people that view the Barbarian through the lens of Howard, de Camp, or Lee.

I think the only thing 4e is missing is a forum for the 12-22 yr olds that are having a blast with this game.

I don't know what to say to this. Are you saying that D&D is being aimed at a younger audience as a gateway RPG perhaps? Maybe, that in an effort to introduce the game to a new audience, many nuances and traditions have been altered or removed to garner a new generation of players while alienating many people who have been loyal to the brand for years.

Shocking.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

At least the Fifth Element dude has the cajones to say he hasn't played 4e, the rest of the replies sound like they haven't really played the game.

I'd be careful of over-assuming here. I gather I'm in the "rest of the replies" basket - but I've Played and DMed 4E. I think you will find the majority who reply on this forum have played 4E... like really.

If you don't want a dragon to be tripped, role-play it. If you think the rulebooks need more common sense... you're the DM! Your job is to be the common sense.

Not exactly. My role as DM is to make sure the players enjoy themselves - and the various facets involved with making that happen. Tinkering with the rules due to inconsistencies is distracting - and thus why I don't do it, as much as 4E makes me want to at times. Our group has found 4E fun and DMing compared to high level 3.x is much easier (once you get your rythym with it). But 4E still has its issues and warts. Glossing over them seems a silly exercise. Telling me to change things on the fly is an easy way to distract my players with inconsistencies - lessening their enjoyment in the process. Like most things, what might work for you might not work for everyone. Trying to tell people that it will work for them like you have, seems again a silly exercise.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[The Little Raven]

Because of my experience, I can understand how the game will play and feel, for me, by reading those rules.

Y'know, I've seen people on these very forums make the same claim, then change their tune entirely because of actually playing it. Reading and hearsay do not even come close to being as accurate as playing the game.

 

[El Mahdi]

Y'know, I've seen people on these very forums make the same claim, then change their tune entirely because of actually playing it. Reading and hearsay do not even come close to being as accurate as playing the game.

I appreciate that you feel that way, but that really isn't true for me. I can't even get past character creation. The sheer number of things I can't do, or can only do in a very preset and rigid manner, ruins it for me right out of the gate. Now I agree that there is a ton of good stuff in the 4E rules. And if I knew for certain that all I ever wanted to do was DM and never play a character, 4E would probably be my system of choice. As to that ton of good stuff, I've stolen a lot of those good parts for my houseruled 3.5E game. I find it easier to add on the good parts of 4E to 3E, rather than adding on parts of 3E to 4E. I just like significantly more of 3E than 4E.

Does this mean I'll never play a game of 4E, absolutely not. If I encounter a 4E game, whether friends or new groups, I'd more than be up for playing a one-off. But for a long term game and a favored system, 3E is the one for me (and my group).

However, if I do change my tune (and it's not completely outside the realm of possibility), I guarantee there will be a new thread on ENWorld the very next day, titled "I changed my tune about 4E. Anyone else feel the same?", started by yours truly. You can also be sure my post will have plenty of these:.

But, if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that thread.

 

[BryonD]

Y'know, I've seen people on these very forums make the same claim, then change their tune entirely because of actually playing it. Reading and hearsay do not even come close to being as accurate as playing the game.

Me too. But I've soon a greater number realize through playing that the concerns were more true than they thought they would be simply based on reading.

 

[howandwhy99]

The thread is about what exactly is missing from 4E. Care to elaborate?

I've already posted on another board how I don't care to denigrate another game just because it doesn't offer me what I want from D&D. There's simply a lot. And to go into it bit by bit trying to convince others doesn't help anyone, to be successful in that endeavor would actually hurts the hobby IMO. Wizards needs to stay alive for our hobby to stay alive and they're not going to radically change 4E.

I will say a lot of what is now published as D&D is a mix of mechanics not suitable for what I consider RPG design, other design elements and some programmatic interactions in the game that are workable as a RPG, but offer a different experience than 70's and 80's D&D, and a good bit of D&D's kitchen sink options that are the Story Team's choices in what options D&D offers and they are not quite what came before. Like races, classes, magic items, etc. People can dislike a game for world content options alone.

I think every single one of these things makes 4E d20 more a game produced by the designers in both Design & Story Teams than the game that came before. I think Wizards is very smart to have these separate two teams. It's just the original game was more of a self-designed and hand-picked game by one man: Gary Gygax. His personal choices and included toybox options may not be to everyone's taste, but there's no denying the game was more a work of one man's art. And I willingly admit that art can't be recaptured. It has to come from the artist, both in design and description.

And so, yes, I do believe 4E is missing a lot of what was D&D for 25-odd years. And I prefer most of that art and others' pastiches upon it over most of what is offered today. That's both mechanics and description I feel are overall superior. The 4E elements I feel are superior to 3E are the ones that harken back to earlier designs. This may seem like stubborn closed-mindedness to some, but I in no way accept all that early published material as good by default. Plus, I have my own experiential and logical reasons for why certain specific game elements are better than other current ones I disagree with. That said, 4E does improve on some of 3E, but declines in a number of ways too.

 

[Celtavian]

re

1. A well-developed combat system that gives the DM rules for resolving things such as grappling, disarming, targeting a specific body part, breaking weapons, fighting in hand-to-hand combat, and the many odd maneuvers a good warrior should be able to do in battle. The combat system went backward in 4E and became less complex and realistic.

2. The feel that a monster acts as a monster of its type would act. 3E did a real nice job of making monsters feel like they were part of a particular race or species. They developed common traits that you could truly imagine being associated with a creature of that type such as elementals not being able to be flanked and undead not suffering from common effects that affect a living mind. Now I can use daze or stun on an ooze with a weapon attack with my rogue, and I don't even bother to think about why because it would make my head hurt. Undead can be put to sleep with a sleep spell, which I find strange. Monsters all feel very generic now exept for their attack powers. And solos are horribly boring and easily beaten, which makes this big, powerful monster see awfully weak.

 

[Tian Zi]

I offended individuals. My apologies. I read threads late in my afternoon, from start to finish, so the individual stances and positions and the nuances of such get lost. My reply was directed (way) more towards the tone of the thread. I forget these are often more of a conversation than a series of position papers. Either way, the word cajones was inappropriate.

D&D is incredibly subjective. The designers can't release it all at once, explain the many ways to interpret the Trip mechanic (dragons wings get knocked off stride or has a knee knocked out, OA as it rights itself), release a class with no fluff, release a class with too much fluff, capture the "magic" from 20 years ago, enforce a setting, not provide a setting, or tell you everything you can do with the skill Arcana.

Some of it they trust you to figure out. How do you use a Dragonborn's Breath Weapon outside of combat? WotC can't tell you that. How do you use Mage Hand in combat? How can WotC know?

To say there are spells, feats or skills missing is only saying they are missing by name. For example, the set of feats Fighter has to choose from are different (he gets the same amount, and has attack options separate from feats, and I bet those feats are coming). Of the 10 actions that Derro mentioned, you can do Bullrush At-Will; Trip, Over-run(kinda, slowed & can't shift, more like Overwhelmed) and a few other non 3.5 attack actions at 1st level. If you spent the Feat, you could Two-Weapon Fight. By 7th level you could Fight Defensive (heal yourself), Un-Feint, and you can always Grapple (Grab). I can imagine Feats for Disarm and Sunder will be released. Whether people will use them more than 3.5, we'll see. In theory, anybody in 3.5 could do many of those things. In practice, is D&D really missing the Druid who could Disarm? Think of the Feats spent!

In the short term, D&D is certainly missing some Feats (Total Defense for one) and plenty of Rituals (the room here is tremendous). I think the PHB1 has plenty of options between class and race to make a decent game, but I can see how there will be a lot of options down the pipe. Certain Races and Classes will certainly be released. Features like Feats, Rituals, and Powers are super quick and easy to homebrew/release. 4.e will quickly swamp 3.5 for options. I don't think D&D will be missing options.

The long term, I think people miss the "simulationism" of 3.5 character design. 4.e certainly misses that. On the other hand, making custom/homebrew At-Wills, Encounters, and Daily's is alot like building characters, and can give you a way to "simulate" your desired vision. Hard to say 4.e misses more abstract thoughts like heart and soul. That is far beyond the scope of 4.e or Enworld.

32, shave my head w/ #2 clippers, and smoke it.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Sweet!!! Now you too can use such devastating powers such as:

Evards Black Tentacles (19th level daily) your opponent can't move for a whole round, possibly longer!!

Maze (25th level daily) your opponent can't escape until its next turn, that will show em.

Forcecage (27th level encounter) your opponent is safely locked away for a whole turn!! He can still beat the crap out of anyone standing next to him though.

Players will be practically quivering with excitement to use these high level awesome powers.

Easy, yes. Satisfying, no.

Well for my players it is quite satisfying. Especially when you compound it with my houserules that allow stuff like pg. 42, Skill Challenges, Acrobatics, etc. can be done within a Power.