4th edition: Not happy with the new direction.

[Neonchameleon]

You do understand that this is a 4th edition discussion forum and not a all hail 4th edition forum?

You do understand that this is a 4th edition discussion forum. Not a 4th edition generalised complaint forum for you to offer in banal terms points about 4e that have been discussed to death ever since 4e first came out in 2008 (the supposed similarity between weapons and magic) with no new insights. Oh, and randomised conspiracy theories about 5e. I have criticisms of 4th ed (ask me about Warlock At Wills sometime for example - or double (or even superior) weapons - or psionic classes), some of which were addressed by Essentials (which added tactically simple classes). However I address them in specific terms rather than generalised non-specific terms which are neither helpful to debate nor discussion.

This is a place that is open to all aspects of 4th edition discussion whether it be positive or negative.

You registered last month. In that time you've had more threads you started locked than I think anyone I've seen in my entire history of posting on ENWorld. This should indicate that you're doing something wrong.

Why haven't you contributed anything actually constructive to the conversation? Some of us are actually trying to have a conversation about it and all you do is nudge the same old crap forward. There are plenty of people here that agree about the similarity issue.

He's contributed as much that's constructive to this discussion as you have. And about the similarity issue, this is one that's been discussed literally for years. Next you'll be telling us it's a crying shame that they've removed THAC0 from the system.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You do understand that this is a 4th edition discussion forum. Not a 4th edition generalised complaint forum for you to offer in banal terms points about 4e that have been discussed to death ever since 4e first came out in 2008 (the supposed similarity between weapons and magic) with no new insights. Oh, and randomised conspiracy theories about 5e. I have criticisms of 4th ed (ask me about Warlock At Wills sometime for example - or double (or even superior) weapons - or psionic classes), some of which were addressed by Essentials (which added tactically simple classes). However I address them in specific terms rather than generalised non-specific terms which are neither helpful to debate nor discussion.



You registered last month. In that time you've had more threads you started locked than I think anyone I've seen in my entire history of posting on ENWorld. This should indicate that you're doing something wrong.



He's contributed as much that's constructive to this discussion as you have. And about the similarity issue, this is one that's been discussed literally for years. Next you'll be telling us it's a crying shame that they've removed THAC0 from the system.

It would be good if you actually took the time to get your facts straight before you start to ramble. If you notice I have been here since 2010. Also, this "is" a 4th edition discussion forum which means that it is open for "all" discussions of 4th edition whether it be good or bad. Seriously, if you have such a problem them report the thread. Coming and trying to be openly confrontational just screams trolling/harassment.

 

[herrozerro]

It would be good if you actually took the time to get your facts straight before you start to ramble. If you notice I have been here since 2010. Also, this "is" a 4th edition discussion forum which means that it is open for "all" discussions of 4th edition whether it be good or bad. Seriously, if you have such a problem them report the thread. Coming and trying to be openly confrontational just screams trolling/harassment.

Okay lets talk 4th edition.

We have pretty much discussed the "its the same" argument to death. whats next? What else dont you like about 4th edition?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Next you'll be telling us .

I don't remember "you" speaking on behalf of everyone else and I don't remember asking "you" for anything.

 

[herrozerro]

I don't remember "you" speaking on behalf of everyone else and I don't remember asking "you" for anything.

Not to be confrontational, but i dont think he is out of line with that us statement, this entire thread has been you telling us what you think and while some might agree in moderation with some of your points your entire tone has been been poisonous and aggressive.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

It's problematic in a lot of ways, IMO. The main issues from a "this would work as D&D" standpoint are:

(1) Bad melee mechanics
(2) Conflation of AC and Reflex
(3) A tidier version of the 3e Action system, when I think that this is one area where 4e basically nailed it.

I had fun running it, but I'd want to clean it up a lot before running it again. I think that 4e is a mechanically better and more interesting system for D&D-like games.

-O

Sounds like that is something that could be fixed.

I think another thing I don't like about 4th edition is most of your powers are only available during combat. I can understand when a class is designed around combat and combat would be where they see most of the action but not all classes are that way.

 

[herrozerro]

I think another thing I don't like about 4th edition is most of your powers are only available during combat. I can understand when a class is designed around combat and combat would be where they see most of the action but not all classes are that way.

alright the old "I want a non-combatant" one.

4e does combat well, it also has utility powers for out of combat. I would argue that skills are probably 4e's best method for out of combat powers.

But other then that if you want to play a game with combatants and non combatants another game might be better for you. or play a lazy lord.

Edit: Oh wait, no your premise is flawed, you can use powers pretty much at any time, they are not limited to combat.

 

[Scribble]

I think there is room in the game for non combat "powers."

The issue I see arising is the old I use some out of combat modeled power creatively during combat in a way that was unintended, and ends up wrecking all thoughts of balance in the game...

You want to reward the creative thinker- but you also don't want to let them destroy the game for everyone.

 

[FireLance]

I think another thing I don't like about 4th edition is most of your powers are only available during combat. I can understand when a class is designed around combat and combat would be where they see most of the action but not all classes are that way.

This is my own personal subjective opinion, of course, but I happen to like it that all classes are able to contribute more or less equally to combat.

That said, non-combat challenges are an area that 4E could do better in. I think the key problem with non-combat challenges is that they tend to be quite varied and unstructured. While it is fairly easy to come up with powers that would be useful in most combats, a power that opens a lock is seldom useful in wilderness survival (unless the party just happens to come across a locked chest full of supplies), a power that creates food and water is seldom useful in a negotiation (unless the NPC just happens to be starving), and a power that influences thoughts is seldom useful when unlocking doors and disarming traps (unless the party just happens to find the person with the key). You could give each PC a suite of non-combat powers that cover several possibilities, but I think that would lead to significant character sheet bloat (think pre-4E style spell lists).

That is why I think the 4E design philosophy is express character resources to deal with non-combat challenges mostly in terms of skills and rituals. Of course, players can also bring their player resources of creativity and imagination to the table, but that would happen regardless of edition.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sounds like that is something that could be fixed.

I think another thing I don't like about 4th edition is most of your powers are only available during combat. I can understand when a class is designed around combat and combat would be where they see most of the action but not all classes are that way.

And not all classes are.

The Hunter I designed as a pregen: Four at wills (Twin Strike being the fourth - and both clever and accurate shot have been used out of combat). One encounter attack power (usable a few times). All exclusively combat. Three stances - two strong out of combat. Four knacks - all exclusively out of combat. Three utility powers and one skill power - only one being primarily for combat.

My wizard: Four cantrips, more rituals than attack powers*, illusion as utility power. Oh, and a familiar - used very effectively and almost exclusively out of combat. And out of combat uses of storm pillar and freezing cloud (don't ask).

The low level thief I want to play next time I change characters: Basic attacks (MBA, RBA) and encounter backstab. Three tricks - one for combat (Tactical Trick), two primarily for out of combat (Acrobat's trick - climb speed, Sneak's trick - can hide with only concealment). Nine trained skills (human, multiclass feat).

Next request?

* Yes, I use rituals on my characters. And martial practices.

Edit: [MENTION=23977]Scribble[/MENTION] there's a simple way of preventing non combat powers being used in combat. Make them take 30 seconds to use.