4E is unacceptable

[The Ghost]

This is probably the first time I have ever heard anyone claim that Fighter10/Wizard10 works. Have we been playing the same game all these years? Toughness a feat that works? Ditto, this is probably the first time I have heard anyone try to claim that.

Is it not possible for different groups of players to enjoy different styles of playing?

Perhaps it is time for people on all sides of this 1e / 2e / 3e / 4e debate to remember that just because you enjoy playing a certain way does not mean that everyone else does.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

When you define "works" as "being able to roxxor everything with bazilliond12" damage then no, fighter 10/wizard10 does not work, but so don't most pure classes in 3E. But when you mean "being enjoyable to play and not sucking totally" then yes, fighter 10 / wizard 10 works. Again, if you are concerned about power take the Eldricht Knight PRC which is core.

And have you ever played an elven wizard from level 1? Or a human wizard with not pumped con? Thoughness does become rather attractive then. Remember that a feat must not be "the best choice for everyone all the time" to work. A feat which helps certain classes at certain times works too.

And no, minmaxers don't matter when discussing the available options of an editions as minmaxers tend to not care about options, just about power and will always take what is the most powerful thing.

You know, when you argue that some of 3E's most infamous bad choices aren't problems and blame everything on the powergamers, it calls into question your real point. Bad choices and a lack of balance is something most fans of 3E can admit.

 

[mattdm]

Why didn't you get Druids and bards? Because the fighters, Rangers, Rogues and Paladins took up as much space as a full blown caster class did in 2nd and 3rd. The game is MORE complete now than ever before, that's why we don't have every class under the sun right away. Each class has vastly more to it, and vastly more interaction and just well everything, than ever before.

So, in hopes of adding something constructive while still whining about how things could have been done differently than they were :

What I wish they had done is made the first set of the core books cover only the heroic tier, but include at least the druid, barbarian, and monk. And then, each class would have almost same number of powers in the book as included now, but they'd all be for the first 10 levels. Same with feats and rituals.

The monster manual would be just as big, but focus on monsters from level 0 (needed to provide a better range of threats to 1st and 2nd level players!) to level 12 (to provide good threats to 10th level players).

Then, the PH2 and MM2 next summer would cover the paragon tier, and PH3 and MM3 the epic tier. Likewise, DMG2 and DMG3 would be about providing interesting game challenges at those levels.

 

[Derren]

Is it not possible for different groups of players to enjoy different styles of playing?

Perhaps it is time for people on all sides of this 1e / 2e / 3e / 4e debate to remember that just because you enjoy playing a certain way does not mean that everyone else does.

Exactly, and thats why removing choices was a bad idea.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Is it not possible for different groups of players to enjoy different styles of playing?

Perhaps it is time for people on all sides of this 1e / 2e / 3e / 4e debate to remember that just because you enjoy playing a certain way does not mean that everyone else does.

I personally played 3.5E for years and enjoyed it. I don't have an issue with somebody who likes that game. Its a good game. It does have its problems though, and arguing that they don't exist is silly.

 

[Ginnel]

Ok, I am sure you heard it all before. However, I have to vent a bit, so bear with me, and you can flame me or tell me I'm too negative or an idiot, or what-have-you, as most often do.[/FONT

I have been HONESTLY trying to be positive about 4E. I got the books, and have been trying very hard to work with them. Initially there were a lot of things that put me off after reading them. I especially did not like the shameless plugs for things here and there, especially the RPGA, which makes me feel like the only official D&D is RPGA run D&D according to WotC. I guess that is fine, though I feel it alienates those of us who don't particularly like RPGA events.

Secondly, it feels like someone took the PHB, DMG, and MM and ripped them in half, and weakly filled in the missing halves with filler that is both unfamiliar and not particularly creative. Then, we are offered the missing halves in book sequels, which will undoubtedly be ripped in half again, and so on. At this rate, I will have to wait several years before I can piece together some semblance of a complete or familiar game.

Ok, I like some things. I like the stream-lined-ness and ease of play. I like the organization. I like the mechanics, for the most part. I think they did well with the core mechanics.

The art is bloody awful in some parts. I have done better in photoshop myself, and I suck (see my art in Mystic Eye Games supplements, and you may agree). The non-uniformedness of the style and quality makes for really shoddy work. The layout is equally slapdash, with page numbers often drifting off the page entirely.

Also, a few rules make no sense to me, and seem to defeat the purpose of simplicity and common sense. Why not just call all powers “POWERS”….why change the name of the power for each class. It is clunky and confusing. And I do not understand the weapon size thing…why can small creatures use medium weapons in some fashion, but medium creatures can’t use large weapons at all? It makes little sense, and seems to contradict itself. There are many other instances of this bizarre stuff that seems to run contrary to the core 4E mechanic, which is actually not too bad.
[/color]
I was willing to overlook all of this. I was willing to say “Oh well, no system is perfect, and this is the future of D&D, and I want to support it.”[/color]
[/color]
Sure, I was daunted by the OGL snafu, and the loss of publishing support from nearly all 3rd party publishers. I pressed on. Less to buy isn’t too bad, I can manage.[/color]
[/color]
Then I downed the 22 page errata, and realized my books are basically trash. It’s been out 3 months and has a 22 page errata???? I know that 3E wasn’t much better, but this was supposed to be an improvement. And these aren’t little errors, either. I can’t have people in my game cross-referencing a pile of papers trying to figure out what basic things like Jump or Stealth do. It is pretty much the final straw. So they lost another dungeon master/player. I cannot use this game as it is. As much as I abhor Paizo (for personally treating me quite terribly on a customer service issue), I think I’ll just have to suck it up and invest in Pathfinder. *Shiver* I hate the name Pathfinder…reminds me of that awful Viking movie….but such is life. So ends 30 years of loyalty to D&D. It is a sad day. [/color]
[/color]is life. So ends 30 years of loyalty to D&D. It is a sad day.

Please leave the colored text for moderator posts, thanks.

Dinkeldog/Moderator

Your post has been weighed, your post has been measured, and it has been found wanting.



There's lots of things that can effect people's games which can be discussed, why don't minions work, whats wrong with healing surges, why is the economy wrong and why is this such a bad thing, all these can be weighed and discussed nicely, which given examples of for and against.

So before you get an itch to write a post in the same vein as the above one give it a bit of time, bring the points into single reasoned posts and talk it out with the other intelligent friendly people here on ENworld you might find its actually a lot of fun.

(just as a disclaimer I'm not personally claiming any of the aforementioned things with 4th edition are wrong or right you'll have to read my posts in the relevent topics to figure out my opinion)

 

[Wicht]

You know, when you argue that some of 3E's most infamous bad choices aren't problems

A Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is only a bad choice from a certain perspective. It all depends on what a person wants out of the game. It will also depend a lot on the sort of games the DM wants to run.

To a certain sort of individual a Bard 10/Monk 10 might be the perfect choice.

 

[The Ghost]

I personally played 3.5E for years and enjoyed it. I don't have an issue with somebody who likes that game. Its a good game. It does have its problems though, and arguing that they don't exist is silly.

Is it a problem if someone does not care?

I do not view Dodge or Toughness to be problems. Are they weaker than other options? Yes. Do I care that they are weaker options? No. Do they prevent me from enjoying the game? No. Therefor, I can say that they are not problems. It is a value judgement, not a a hard fact. Others will disagree.

By comparison, I do think that the 10/10 Fighter Wizard is a problem because it cannot accurately reflect what I perceive to be the concept of Fighter-Mage. Playing a Fighter-Mage is something I care about. Therefor, I can say that it is a problem. Others will disagree.

I just do not see the point in arguing about editions and their problems. What I enjoy and what others enjoy will never be exactly the same. Why argue?

 

[Mercule]

Having read the three books, cover to cover: There's RPGA stuff in there? I kinda remember something in a sidebar, but nothing forced.

Otherwise, I think I've determined my standard response to these threads is:

Edit: apparently not appreciated.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Mercule, would you kindly fix your post so it doesn't fark the thread?

Kthx.