4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Remathilis]

What do you mean why do I ever buy a new edition? There are fairly obvious reasons. I mean lets consider this at its extreme, the first rules I owned were the LBBs (Original D&D as some call it now). Of course I could have stuck with playing that, but it is a rather primitive game. It has its charm and its advantages, but 1e was a much more usable set of rules, and we all naturally bought at least some 2e stuff over the years. I will note however that I personally never did run 3e or 3.5e and don't own that material. I'm happy to play it, but note that AD&D remained perfectly adequate to many people. I don't have a really strong ideological reason for that either.

OTOH I found that 4e worked well, the material was useful, the rules were practical and covered the things that I wanted, so I bought it. My 2e books were pretty shot anyway, and we hadn't played in a while, so it seemed like a reasonably point to go try out something newer. As I say, not being hung up with one specific set of mechanics or fluff being somehow "more D&D" than another there was no ideological problem there.

I don't have to accept or not accept other people's tastes. I know when I say that I don't understand their tastes that this tends to translate to "I don't approve and think they should adopt my tastes" but I'm not saying that. Ramathilis need not justify his preferences to me. He will have to live with the fact that I don't understand how his brain works and for me the differences in fluff and mechanics between editions are not a pressing issue. I am running the same campaign world I invented for my Holmes Basic campaign in 1976 or so with 4e. It works fine. It feels like mostly the same world, and there are NPCs in it that were characters played back in that 1976 game. They actually translate reasonably well, at least in concept (and the concepts we were playing with back then were pretty basic).

Here is my position.

I began in Basic D&D, moved onto AD&D 2e, then 3e and 3.5. Each game felt like an evolution, but they kept the same kernel. For example, the wizard spells per day chart is pretty much the same in each edition (if not perfect, its moderately close). A 5th level mage casts fireball, which does enough damage to wipe out a room of goblins. That is an outcome in Basic, AD&D, and 3e, but its not in 4e. Its not even a bug; its a feature. Its an intended outcome that a fireball can't kill a room of goblins, it won't even do much more than bloody them (if even). That bother's me. It doesn't feel like the D&D I've played up to this point.

Fourth did that to me alot. It didn't feel like an evolution of the original rules, it felt like someone trying to capture a similar feeling using new rules. The more I tried to make it feel like what D&D meant to me, the less it worked. Ironically, the more I strayed from those tropes, the more palatable it became. (The best 4e game we played involved a genasi swordmage, a deva invoker, a warforged warlord, a dragonborn sorcerer, and a human starlock facing a shadar-kai invasion. Hardly the Tolkien-esque fantasy of the Redbox).

Was it the mechanics? Somewhat. The power-based resources and healing surge-based recovery certainly felt different than classic D&D of old. Was it the story? Somewhat. 4e certainly felt like it went out of the way to redefine as much as possible; both in the sense of creating a "new" experience as much as it was to separate it from the boatload of IP given away free in the 3e SRD. Yet somehow, the two mixed together constantly to remind me it wasn't the same game. It didn't look the same, play the same, or even read the same. It had similarities (similar races and classes) but they were all presented in such different ways as to always remind me this was different. In the end, I couldn't look past the mountain of different to fine the common ground.

I often feel that was WotC's point. They didn't want to look, feel, or play like older D&D. They wanted a new beast with a familiar name. In the end, most of the "legacy" elements felt forced, far different from its origin except in the most general sense. They thought they could build a newer, sleeker game that would appeal to card-gamers, wargamers, RPG-players video-gamers and MMO-players that just happened to have the pedigree of the Worlds Oldest RPG tacked on.

I understand there are plenty who disagree and I'm not here to say you're wrong. I just point out that little trivial things add up. Even something as simple as "elementals are stupid, hail archons!" felt like a slap in the face. For me, 4e was best when it wasn't trying to be the D&D of my youth; when it tried to be it just felt wrong.

 

[Hussar]

I'm curious, so does the fact that the rogue is less effective against particular monsters "Deny the ability to author a story"? I mean there's still a story if he faces these particular type of creatures, and it can easily be one about how the Rogue survived an adverse situation where the odds were stacked against him (or it could be the story of how he failoed to overcome it I guess...). So is he really de-protagonized by that rule... or am I not grasping this concept correctly?

There's a difference here though. We're not talking "less effective" really. We're talking virtually ineffective. The rogue's primary schtick in combat is lots of damage. He fights something that is immune to SA and suddenly he's doing about 4 points of damage per hit. Maybe. Depending on other resistances.

IOW, he's gone from being a major player at the table to being sidelined. Not because of any choice he made, and that's the important part. He's being sidelined simply because the mechanics have decreed that he shall not be important at this point in time.

Now, once in a while? That's fine. The above example of the Pathfinder wraith is cool. That's perfectly in keeping with genre fiction and to be expected. However, in 3e, there were pretty broad swaths of pretty common monsters that sidelined the rogue. Being sidelined or forced to deal with things in a single encounter, or maybe two encounters? No worries at all. Being sidelined for an entire adventure, and riding the pines for four sessions? Not so much fun.

That's what is being talked about. One encounter? No problem. That's cool. An entire adventure? Not so cool.

As far as 4e goes, I'd point out that with exception based rules, making something immune/resistant takes about 10 seconds. And, because the math is pretty transparent, it's not like you aren't going to be able to figure out the results of that change. I'm not seeing the major edition difference here.

---------

Remalthalis - if you wanted fireball to clear a room full of goblins, why aren't you using minions? Which is what goblins were for the first three editions? I mean, sure, if you use 5 bigger goblins, then fireball isn't going to cut it.

Then again, in 3e, the 5 goblins that your 5th level party met would likely be warrior 3's or 4's, just to make it an EL par encounter, and that fireball wouldn't kill them either. I think that people are deliberately choosing to ignore 4e elements in order to accentuate differences.

 

[Derren]

There's a difference here though. We're not talking "less effective" really. We're talking virtually ineffective. The rogue's primary schtick in combat is lots of damage. He fights something that is immune to SA and suddenly he's doing about 4 points of damage per hit. Maybe. Depending on other resistances.

God beware that the rogue prepares for such combats, especially when they are so common. 4 points of damage? Low level than. Ever heard off Holy Water? Quite good against things immune to SA. And a ranged attack.
Or what about the exclusive Use Magic Device skill? Its there for a reason.

Sadly the more common reaction to players to this scenario is "I can't hack&slash murder this enemy with my one trick PC? This is stupid and the game is bad". Thats how we got the "burn fire elemental" and SA Undead feats which lead to 4Es "no immunities".

 

[NewJeffCT]

I found that the Rituals system made it very easy to present Raise Dead in 4e as rare and wondrous. And AIR the game makes clear that most people cannot be Raised, so being brought back from the dead has always been a major event in my games. The first time it happened in 'Loudwater', the group had no idea the old woman they'd just met could do it; the raisee was so affected at being brought back from the Shadowfell that she immediately converted to the worship of Kelemvor, Judge of the Dead!
Ironically, 'Essentials' threatens to nerf this for us with the Warpriest class that casts Raise Dead a lot more like pre-4e, but I'm planning to keep the original fluff about it only working on a few people - those of destiny, perhaps.

This is a few pages down from my original post on this now, but I don't have good access to enworld during working hours.

As written - Raise Dead requires 500gp of components and a PC willing to come back from the dead. both 3.5 and Pathfinder also include willing to come back as well. Not sure if it was codified prior to 3E, but I know that was how my groups always had played it as well. You can certainly add in wonder & awe if you want as a DM, but I don't think it's really put into the rules.

And, it's not just Raise Dead. Teleport is also another device that was one of those awesome things you did at the end of a 1e/2e campaign. However, it was also a midway level spell in 3E, available at level 9 in a game designed to go up to level 20. And, 4E also does the same. Linked Portal gives you the ability to teleport at level 8 again, or less than 30% of the way through the typical campaign.

Many of the spells that were awesome game changers in 1e/2e lost their wonder once 3E came out, and lost it even further with 4E.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Here is my position.

I began in Basic D&D, moved onto AD&D 2e, then 3e and 3.5. Each game felt like an evolution, but they kept the same kernel. For example, the wizard spells per day chart is pretty much the same in each edition (if not perfect, its moderately close). A 5th level mage casts fireball, which does enough damage to wipe out a room of goblins. That is an outcome in Basic, AD&D, and 3e, but its not in 4e. Its not even a bug; its a feature. Its an intended outcome that a fireball can't kill a room of goblins, it won't even do much more than bloody them (if even). That bother's me. It doesn't feel like the D&D I've played up to this point.

Fourth did that to me alot. It didn't feel like an evolution of the original rules, it felt like someone trying to capture a similar feeling using new rules. The more I tried to make it feel like what D&D meant to me, the less it worked. Ironically, the more I strayed from those tropes, the more palatable it became. (The best 4e game we played involved a genasi swordmage, a deva invoker, a warforged warlord, a dragonborn sorcerer, and a human starlock facing a shadar-kai invasion. Hardly the Tolkien-esque fantasy of the Redbox).

Was it the mechanics? Somewhat. The power-based resources and healing surge-based recovery certainly felt different than classic D&D of old. Was it the story? Somewhat. 4e certainly felt like it went out of the way to redefine as much as possible; both in the sense of creating a "new" experience as much as it was to separate it from the boatload of IP given away free in the 3e SRD. Yet somehow, the two mixed together constantly to remind me it wasn't the same game. It didn't look the same, play the same, or even read the same. It had similarities (similar races and classes) but they were all presented in such different ways as to always remind me this was different. In the end, I couldn't look past the mountain of different to fine the common ground.

I often feel that was WotC's point. They didn't want to look, feel, or play like older D&D. They wanted a new beast with a familiar name. In the end, most of the "legacy" elements felt forced, far different from its origin except in the most general sense. They thought they could build a newer, sleeker game that would appeal to card-gamers, wargamers, RPG-players video-gamers and MMO-players that just happened to have the pedigree of the Worlds Oldest RPG tacked on.

I understand there are plenty who disagree and I'm not here to say you're wrong. I just point out that little trivial things add up. Even something as simple as "elementals are stupid, hail archons!" felt like a slap in the face. For me, 4e was best when it wasn't trying to be the D&D of my youth; when it tried to be it just felt wrong.

extremely well put - that was my feeling about 4E. You said it much better than I could, though.

 

[Hussar]

God beware that the rogue prepares for such combats, especially when they are so common. 4 points of damage? Low level than. Ever heard off Holy Water? Quite good against things immune to SA. And a ranged attack.
Or what about the exclusive Use Magic Device skill? Its there for a reason.

Sadly the more common reaction to players to this scenario is "I can't hack&slash murder this enemy with my one trick PC? This is stupid and the game is bad". Thats how we got the "burn fire elemental" and SA Undead feats which lead to 4Es "no immunities".

Sigh. Holy water - again what, 4 points of damage? oooh, be still my beating heart. Use Magic Device - the solution to the issue is to turn my character into a wizard. Ok, that's a good idea.

Nothing like hyperbole to prove a point. After all, it's not like 4e is the only edition to try to resolve this. After all, Pathfinder did pretty much the same thing as 4e - let's not make the rogue ride the pines for four or five SESSIONS because of the mechanics.

But, yeah, everything 4e is automatically wrongbadfun and must therefore never be introduced into any other RPG.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Here is my position.
[...]

I have to say I was struck reading this by how completely different your experiences and perspectives are than mine, how different, even opposed, your opinions on some of the individual topics are, and yet, how we both reached essentially the same conclusion.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There's a difference here though. We're not talking "less effective" really. We're talking virtually ineffective. The rogue's primary schtick in combat is lots of damage.

Maybe. But the rogue's primary shtick overall is not combat.

If you're playing a roguish character and you want to deal a lot of damage, you ought to be multiclassing and choosing ability scores and other features and items to maximize your base damage. If you're playing a straight-up typical rogue (or thief) and you're disappointed every time you can't hurt someone effectively in melee, you're playing the wrong character.

However, in 3e, there were pretty broad swaths of pretty common monsters that sidelined the rogue. Being sidelined or forced to deal with things in a single encounter, or maybe two encounters? No worries at all. Being sidelined for an entire adventure, and riding the pines for four sessions? Not so much fun.

There are indeed many such circumstances. And the way the rules are constructed makes it a very diametric choice: you either deal a ton of extra damage or none at all, where a shades of gray approach would have been better. That being said, such a character is still able to do the main things that rogues do (scout, sneak, lie, infiltrate, etc.), and is still pretty effective at drawing enemy fire. Or, with UMD and the right magic item options, the rogue can concentrate on buffing/healing party members (or turning those heals on the enemy, if undead).

Sadly the more common reaction to players to this scenario is "I can't hack&slash murder this enemy with my one trick PC? This is stupid and the game is bad". Thats how we got the "burn fire elemental" and SA Undead feats which lead to 4Es "no immunities".

Indeed.

***

Personally, I think sneak attack is a pretty poorly written ability, but I don't think rogues are useless.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, but, no, I don't believe that rogues are useless. But, we're talking about protagonism. To me, this is the idea that the character is the protagonist in the game. If the character is rendered mostly useless by the mechanics, it's been deprotagonized. And, most of the things which are immune to sneak attacks, are also pretty much immune to the other part of the rogue's schtick, which is social skills.

So, basically, two thirds of the character's schtick is rendered nul simply by the mechanics. The rogue is left with exploration. I talked about this earlier. It's not like shambling mounds make traps. Sure, that undead filled tomb might have traps, cool, but, again, 2/3rds of the time, our rogue is warming the pines. Nothing to talk to, and when faced with combat, the rogue is not winning any awards.

Which, again, is fine when it's one encounter. Maybe two encounters, sure. Spending four or five sessions - for my group, about 14 hours of game time - where 2/3rds of my character's schtick is blocked, is not fun for me.

Hey, if it's fun for you, great. I'd much rather the baseline doesn't block the character abilities, and you can simply add that in, than force a playstyle onto everyone and then hope that groups will figure out that they don't like this before the rogue player spends several weeks twiddling his thumbs.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I often feel that was WotC's point. They didn't want to look, feel, or play like older D&D. They wanted a new beast with a familiar name. In the end, most of the "legacy" elements felt forced, far different from its origin except in the most general sense. They thought they could build a newer, sleeker game that would appeal to card-gamers, wargamers, RPG-players video-gamers and MMO-players that just happened to have the pedigree of the Worlds Oldest RPG tacked on.

I understand there are plenty who disagree and I'm not here to say you're wrong. I just point out that little trivial things add up. Even something as simple as "elementals are stupid, hail archons!" felt like a slap in the face. For me, 4e was best when it wasn't trying to be the D&D of my youth; when it tried to be it just felt wrong.

That's pretty much how I felt after playing 4Ed for a few months: the system was being held back by the legacy issues; the game didn't feel like what I wanted out of D&D as opposed to FRPGs in general.

Now, approaching the 3 year mark of the 4Ed campaign, I still feel that way.

Don't get me wrong- I like playing 4Ed. But I'd be happier if D&D went one way, while the 4Ed mechanics got decoupled from those legacy issues, so it could really find its stride.