What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[renau1g]

In Pathfinder characters don't die at the drop of a hat anymore...and low-level combat is still substantially quicker than 4e combat. I also find the absence of simple classes for someone who just wants to try the game or play casually or even someone not very interested in tactics is a total failure on 4e's part in drawing in new gamers. Well my players got up to level 5 and the game just felt sor of monotonous to us and combat took up way too much of our alloted game time. Right now my brother has started running Pathfinder and it's a breath of fresh air, where we actually progress through the story at a reasonable pace. But again this is all subjectively my feelings.

It's unfair to compare the combat's of Pathfinder vs 4e as they are usually far different animals. Many PF combats have a single monster, at least in the Kingmaker modules that I purchased, whereas 4e tends towards 4+ enemies at a time. I actually find it boring when we all get jazzed up for combat, we all roll init, then the barbarian charges in and in one hit kills the enemy. It's so anti-climatic. Again, maybe that's me, but 4e low-level combat is very deadly. I've had no problem killing PCs in that system, monster just need to "focus-fire" which is a very basic strategy even most unintelligent monsters would know. If all 5 monsters hit the PC in a round (not hard to do), they will almost certainly be ko'd.

I also enjoy a story, but if I didn't want a challenging combat system I'd likely not play D&D and just sit around and do some collaborative story-telling with the DM.

 

[Shazman]

No argument here, but I think you missed my point... for many... the high level issues were a non-issue. As far as preperation goes, once one gets the rules down it's easy enough to fudge the rules to customize a monster or NPC when necessary... yet use a robust system when desired. I am a firm believer in learning the rules so that you can break them. It's probably easier than having to learn a whole set of new rules.



So are you saying WotC went against the assumptions they had on whether people wanted a new system and new fluff... and did it anyway? Doesn't seem a smart way to run a business. Yes Use the Force and healing have issues... but every game has issues. However, I was useing SWSE as a general example not a specifc iteration that should have been 4e. And I have seen both of those issues houseruled into a workable state in various ways quite easily on the Star Wars boards.





And again, I say for your theory on 4e retaining more DM's to be true you assume there is only one type of DM, the one who runs long continuous campaigns in the same world with the same characters, which I just don't buy as the only type.

I really think that 4th edition should have been more like a fantasy version of SW Saga. Sw Saga looks like a great system, but 4E seems to have many areas where the designers dropped the ball, namely excessive hp bloat of monsters and ultra-gamist elements like martial healing and divine challenge.

 

[Shazman]

[than I did with 4e and it's mathematical sweet spot across all levels.



True, but this assumes that they all wanted a different game with totally different fluff(and I'm almost positive that this isn't 100% true)...as opposed to the same game and fluff with fixes... or perhaps tweaks along the lines of Star Wars SE.

Except, from my experience, there is no sweet spot in 4E. The game starts out painful to play, with it taking way too long to drop enemies and only gets worse as the levels increase. At least 3.5 had a sweet spot.

 

[Shazman]

It's unfair to compare the combat's of Pathfinder vs 4e as they are usually far different animals. Many PF combats have a single monster, at least in the Kingmaker modules that I purchased, whereas 4e tends towards 4+ enemies at a time. I actually find it boring when we all get jazzed up for combat, we all roll init, then the barbarian charges in and in one hit kills the enemy. It's so anti-climatic. Again, maybe that's me, but 4e low-level combat is very deadly. I've had no problem killing PCs in that system, monster just need to "focus-fire" which is a very basic strategy even most unintelligent monsters would know. If all 5 monsters hit the PC in a round (not hard to do), they will almost certainly be ko'd.

I also enjoy a story, but if I didn't want a challenging combat system I'd likely not play D&D and just sit around and do some collaborative story-telling with the DM.

Sorry, this doesn't fit with my experiences. I've been in a number of Pathfinder combats with 7 pcs and over ten enemies, and they were still resolved in a fraction of the time than 4E combats usually are. Besides, even if 4E combat is supposed to use more opponents than 3.5/Pathfinder combat, the end result is that 4E combat takes much longer to resolve than in Pathfinder. That's what matters. How much time does combat eat up, and would some of that time be better spent doing non combat things? Do I want to have one or two combats a game session with 4E (and have time for little else), or do I want to have 4 or 5 with Pathfinder (if that's what the adventure calls for), or just more time for RP and information gathering/problem solving/exploring?

 

[amerigoV]

If they weren't demanding, you'd get companies shoveling cheap crap at you and calling it good enough. McDonald's would never have sold salads, if they didn't hear the equivalent of threads like this.

So by extension, 4e Essentials is like getting a salad at McDonalds...

Mmmmm, salad.

 

[renau1g]

I really think that 4th edition should have been more like a fantasy version of SW Saga. Sw Saga looks like a great system, but 4E seems to have many areas where the designers dropped the ball, namely excessive hp bloat of monsters and ultra-gamist elements like martial healing and divine challenge.

They've addressed the hp bloat of monsters in MM3 and I believe will have the DDI updated for this change.

Ultra-gamist? How is Divine Challenge...the god of a paladin punishing those who ignore him in honourable combat any different than say Lay on Hands, the god granting the paladin the power to heal?

Martial Healing bothers you? So you've never heard of great leaders who pushed on their soldiers through pain? I know I have. HP is an abstraction of damage so it does work fine.

 

[Imaro]

It's unfair to compare the combat's of Pathfinder vs 4e as they are usually far different animals. Many PF combats have a single monster, at least in the Kingmaker modules that I purchased, whereas 4e tends towards 4+ enemies at a time. I actually find it boring when we all get jazzed up for combat, we all roll init, then the barbarian charges in and in one hit kills the enemy. It's so anti-climatic. Again, maybe that's me, but 4e low-level combat is very deadly. I've had no problem killing PCs in that system, monster just need to "focus-fire" which is a very basic strategy even most unintelligent monsters would know. If all 5 monsters hit the PC in a round (not hard to do), they will almost certainly be ko'd.

Unfair? Why is it unfair to compare the combat systems of 2 rpg's... it doesn't seem "unfair" to compare them any time 4e has a supposed advantage over 3e. Anyway, as a counterpoint... I find "heroes" having to focus fire on kobolds and goblins round, after round, after round anti-heroic, anti-climactic and boring. In every edition up till now they were the dregs of the ecology.

I also enjoy a story, but if I didn't want a challenging combat system I'd likely not play D&D and just sit around and do some collaborative story-telling with the DM.

Doesn't have to be either or just because WotC made it that way in their game. Runequest 2 from Mongoose has an engaging and challenging combat system and also runs way faster than 4e's combats.

 

[renau1g]

Sorry, this doesn't fit with my experiences. I've been in a number of Pathfinder combats with 7 pcs and over ten enemies, and they were still resolved in a fraction of the time than 4E combats usually are. Besides, even if 4E combat is supposed to use more opponents than 3.5/Pathfinder combat, the end result is that 4E combat takes much longer to resolve than in Pathfinder. That's what matters. How much time does combat eat up, and would some of that time be better spent doing non combat things? Do I want to have one or two combats a game session with 4E (and have time for little else), or do I want to have 4 or 5 with Pathfinder (if that's what the adventure calls for), or just more time for RP and information gathering/problem solving/exploring?

That depends, would you rather fight one dire wolf, then a pair of goblins, then a quad of kobolds (who all go down in one or two hits) or have one battle with all of them? The focus of 4e seems to trend towards less, but more important battles. I'd much rather have one or two very important combats (story-wise and combat-wise) per session (which also isn't my experience, in most 4 hour sessions with fit 4 combats easily + other stuff).

 

[Imaro]

They've addressed the hp bloat of monsters in MM3 and I believe will have the DDI updated for this change.

Yay, I can spend more money to get monsters that work right in my game!! Just like skill challenges!!

 

[renau1g]

Unfair? Why is it unfair to compare the combat systems of 2 rpg's... it doesn't seem "unfair" to compare them any time 4e has a supposed advantage over 3e. Anyway, as a counterpoint... I find "heroes" having to focus fire on kobolds and goblins round, after round, after round anti-heroic, anti-climactic and boring. In every edition up till now they were the dregs of the ecology.
.

They still are, it's just that all the "ecology" is a bit tougher.

Fine, call it fair, but to make it equivalent you should make sure at least the total enemies are the same, so you should probably add at least 2-3 combats together for PF. Again you can compare apples to oranges, but that wouldn't be a fair assumption.

I find it anti-heroic when a kobold with a sling (the dregs that you speak of) take down many 1st level PC's with one shot. Again, each person enjoys different things.