Disappointed in 4e

[Grydan]

Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery?

I'm curious, what makes a ranger "inevitably nature-themed"?

 

[garyh]

I'm curious, what makes a ranger "inevitably nature-themed"?

Welcome to EN World!

And you raise a very good point. In 4e, rangers get a choice of Dungeoneering or Nature. Take Dungeoneering (what adventurer wouldn't want that?), ignore Nature, and don't look back. There. That's your nature-free archer / two-weapon combatant. Especially now that in 4e there are no default animal companions or nature spells for rangers.

 

[ppaladin123]

Welcome to EN World!

And you raise a very good point. In 4e, rangers get a choice of Dungeoneering or Nature. Take Dungeoneering (what adventurer wouldn't want that?), ignore Nature, and don't look back. There. That's your nature-free archer / two-weapon combatant. Especially now that in 4e there are no default animal companions or nature spells for rangers.

Actually, I think the 4e ranger is a good example of broken shackles. In 3.5e you were stuck with an animal companion and a spell list along with the two-weapon fighting or archery choice. Now you can build a martial woodsman or non-woodsman....animal companion and divine spell casting optional.

 

[CleverNickName]

Saying "I do not like 4E" is not the same as saying "4E is a bad game."

And, saying "4E is a bad game" is not the same as saying "Nobody should like 4E."

 

[S'mon]

Selling your 3e books before getting the 4e books was not smart.

 

[delericho]

So, a few months before it came out, I went out and sold all my 3.x books to Half Price Books.

This was a mistake. If it's any consolation, though, you should now be able to get ahold of new copies of 3.x books cheap. And, if you refrain from buying back your entire collection, but instead only get the best/most useful books, you may well still end up ahead overall.

1) The extreme cookie-cutterness of the characters. Every character seems to be plotted out in advance. You get 4 powers a level, each one similar, and two builds.

After eight years, didn't you find core-rules-only Fighters and Clerics and Wizards had become rather repetitive and dull? Because that's the point we're at now with 4e. The list of options will expand, probably quite fast, but for now it's necessarily limited.

(Whether the core-4e has fewer options than core-3e has been debated at length here before. IMO, it does, although some of those fewer options, notably Fighters, seem rather more satisfying than their predecessors.)

For the rest of your points, I have no comment. My group are yet to actually try playing 4e.

 

[Nikosandros]

Do you think the wrote The Complete Priest's Handbook as a pure form of artistic expression?

Well, Terrible Trouble at Tragidore certainly was a Dadaist masterpiece: a veritable manifesto of the rejection of traditional aesthetics...

 

[Thanee]

Every character seems to be plotted out in advance.
No where close to what 3E required, with planning for Feats, PrCs, etc.

I think you misunderstood him there... it's not like you have to plot them out in advance, as you surely had to (to some degree, especially when it comes to PrC) with 3E/3.5, but they already come preplotted right out of the box.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IOW, his complaint is that Core 4Ed truncates choice in comparison to Core 3Ed...which is something that definitely turns me off about that game.

 

[DaveMage]

3e is better.

I'm DaveMage, and I approve this message.