4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[FireLance]

I think page 42 provides the raw material necessary to make a really great tool. But it's like a screwdriver without a handle that the manufacturer tells you should be used to pound in nails: Incomplete and broken for its intended application. Add a handle and use it in a completely different way than the designers tell you to, though, and you've got something that's useful.

I would argue that it does exactly what it is supposed to do: set challenges. Unfortunately, it is not the only thing that several players expect it to do (i.e. take into account the world-building and simulation aspects).

It's like a diner that provides a meal that tastes great, but looks like a pile of slop (Alternately, it might look like a work of art, but taste like cardboard). If you are only interested in the taste (or the looks), you would be quite happy with it. However, if you want both, then something is lacking.

 

[Obryn]

(2) I predict this thread will end in flames.

It's awesome to be having the same arguments in 2013 as we did in 2008, isn't it? Anyone else feel like watching re-runs of "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!"?

(I'm rooting for Patti Blagojevich this time!)

-O

 

[MoonSong]

As someone who genuinely wanted to like 4e, it just felt... incomplete. The 4e marketing was pretty bad, but the books themselves felt rushed. There was scaling problems with the math (fixed later in other Monster Manuals and by the expertise/defense feats), the books themselves had 1/2 the material of previous editions (the Core Line 1 missing metallic dragons, druids, bards, frost giants, and other staples felt very much like a "want the rest? buy book 2!" money grab). Top it off with the distinct lack of magic items (filled by yet another book, Adventurer's Vault) and some of the worst modules ever released for D&D, 4e felt like it was sent off to prom without a corset for its date, wearing a tux too small, and with only a quarter tank of gas in the car.

Essentials should have been 4.5: a redone PHB/DMG/MM which upgraded the core; fixed the math, gave non-ADEU versions of classes, and been the cornerstone of the game going forward. I really did like where Essentials was going design-wise, but it almost felt like WotC was either schizophrenic in its desire to cater to older players in Essentials but also keep to 4e's original system, or they got cold feat about making it a 4.5 and tried to backtrack. Either way, what could have been a brilliant chance to re-introduce 4e to players like me put off my the mess the game originally was, it instead felt like it was one of many ideas tossed out to keep the ship from sinking.

Well, I have a similar opinion, even today 4e feels incomplete. So many things I wished to see happen will never materialize. (The "Intermix variants" feats and hybrid versions for the rest of the essential classes for example).

So many little changes at early stages could have gone a long way to improve it. (Like having a perform skill based on cha and base Bard rituals on it, having musical instruments become true implements that scaled, a more subtle arcane origin for sorcerers, allowing all rogues use of rapiers, bows and whips, have a ranged build for fighters, more mundane equipment on the phb, off-grid support...)

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

4E made it quite clear that combat is the core of the game and that if you didn't want combat you should gtfo.

...And this is where a 4e critic loses all credibility. As soon as you start imagining that a group of writers is not only telling you how to run your game, but also insulting and cursing you, it's time to take a step back and consider why you're so invested in villainizing those writers and the game they wrote.

Not saying 4e's non-combat support is perfect; but then, you'll find no shortage of non-combat failings in any given edition.

 

[FireLance]

It's awesome to be having the same arguments in 2013 as we did in 2008, isn't it?

Certainly, some tensions are eternal, but 4e has seen a lot of development since 2008, and there are now potential solutions, if not necessarily official solutions, to some of the age-old complaints.

For example, "I can't play an archer fighter" can easily be addressed by adding an archer theme.

"I don't want to play a fighter with daily powers" can be addressed by the Essentials slayer, or fighter "Daily" abilities that provide a continuous benefit until the end of the character's next extended rest.

"The world changes with the PCs' level" can be addressed by providing tables of what common challenges (e.g. locks, doors, walls, etc.) of varying DCs represent in the real world or asking DMs who are concerned about world-building and simulation to reverse-engineer the real world situation from the calculated DC and to maintain consistency while doing so.

The fact that all of these can be addressed by adding to the base system (instead of making changes to it) is an indication to me that there is nothing wrong with it. Indeed (and IMO), it is the most transparent, easily adapted and easily balanced iteration of the rules to date.

Oh, well.

 

[Sunseeker]

...And this is where a 4e critic loses all credibility. As soon as you start imagining that a group of writers is not only telling you how to run your game, but also insulting and cursing you, it's time to take a step back and consider why you're so invested in villainizing those writers and the game they wrote.

Not saying 4e's non-combat support is perfect; but then, you'll find no shortage of non-combat failings in any given edition.

If you ask me, non-combat has always been an afterthought in any edition as far as the rules go. Most editions don't reward the use of skills in place of combat. The success of a skill vs an attack is largely the discretion of the DM as opposed to defined by the rules, and by and large most use of skills comes down to "make a roll: determine success on chart, move on." This is largely true in any edition. Social and Exploration has long been the domain of player and DM fiat where RP reigns without the need for much structure, rules or complexity.

Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it's not. But it's pretty common in every edition of D&D.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't always make threads about D&D Fourth Edition that beg for piling on and rehashing of the same ole, same ole...but when I do...

 

[Libramarian]

The way I see it, page 42 is simply providing challenge-setting advice. However, for whatever reasons (brevity, clarity, or the assumption that the readers would be able to connect the dots themselves) it does not give sufficient nods to the world-building or simulation perspective.

I don't think it's as easy as giving it a nod, though. The only way to allow the DM to choose DCs based on the fiction while ensuring DCs are relatively balanced is to use radically flatter math. Like they're doing with 5e.

 

[FireLance]

I don't think it's as easy as giving it a nod, though. The only way to allow the DM to choose DCs based on the fiction while ensuring DCs are relatively balanced is to use radically flatter math. Like they're doing with 5e.

IMO, flatter math is just more forgiving of the DM's mistakes or miscalculations. If the break DC of a wooden door is 15 and the break DC of an adamantium door is 25, there are ony nine points in between to insert stone, iron, steel, mithral, etc. At the end of the day, if one DM says that the break DC of an iron door is 18 and another DM says it's 20, it's just a 2-point difference.

If you're willing to set the DC first and reverse-engineer what's happening in the fiction (i.e. instead of asking, "This vault is protected by a iron door. What's the break DC?" you ask "The break DC of the vault door is 25. What sort of door is it?") then a table like the following could help:

Wooden door: DC 16
Hard wooden door: DC 20
Stone door: DC 24
Iron door: DC 28
Steel door: DC 32
Mithral door: DC 36
Adamantium door: DC 40

Thick: +1 DC
Reinforced: +2 DC

Using the table above, a DC 25 door would be a thick stone door. A DC 30 door would be a reinforced iron door, and a DC 35 door would be a thick reinforced steel door.

The above table can be used to generate a DC of up to 43. Higher DCs (if required) can be generated through magical reinforcement (+ whatever you need to the DC).

 

[S'mon]

I have much the same sentiment, though I hope DDI will continue to support 4e for a while. I'm not sure why they wouldn't since they've already invested in it.

I seem to already have about ten years' worth of 4e material, even running 2 campaigns - about 50 sessions/year - and that's before I look at converting stuff from other editions. I tend to often wait a few years to buy stuff, eg I just got Thunderspire Labyrinth and ordered the Dark Sun monster book and the Eberron campaign guide. And going through everything in Dungeon & Dragon will take years - until a couple weeks ago I didn't even realise that 4e Dragon had tons of GM's stuff in it, I thought it was player-splat only!
My current plan is to run my main 4e campaign at least another 4 years to take it to 30, while I've just started an Heroic Tier Beginners campaign that should go a couple years also, Jan-August 2013 and part 2 in Jan-August 2014, to around the time when 5e will be released. I expect I'll do a different low-level 4e campaign after that.
So 4e won't really feel like a 'closed' edition to me for a very long time.