4E is unacceptable

[Phoenix8008]

First and foremost: To each his own.

I can understand most of what the OP is talking about and even agree with some of it. 22 pages of errata is a lot for books that have been supposedly playtested for as long as these were. But the font in those 22 pages is fairly large and I remember a good deal of errata for 3rd edition as well. The errata is probably my biggest grumble about the new edition.

The art is a subjective thing. I didn't love it or hate it. It was okay by me.

I don't think anybody really wants all the stuff that will be in the class/splat books to be included in the PHB. Not unless you want to pay $60-70 for your PHB.

I love the new mechanics with how things are balanced now and how the powers function. My oldest son on the other hand can't stand all the powers for all the classes functioning in the same manner. He's 16 and all he's ever known is 3e/3.5 and quit playing 4e after our first 5 or so sessions.

Overall, I'm still loving the system and it's tons easier to DM. The combats still take alot of game time, but at least that 2 hours of fighting is 10 or 15 rounds, not 2-3 rounds like in epic level 3.5 gaming that I DM'ed. I'm hooked and will continue to buy and support 4E unless something changes dramatically. But like I said first: To each his own...

 

[cinderember]

4E was made for people who aren't me, and as someone who has played D&D for 24 years of my life and had the game influence many facets of my personality, that hurts a bit. The problem is that rather than feel like I've just been kicked in the gut, I need to either roll with the changes or stick to what I like. I've decided to stick with what I like.

The 3.5/Pathfinder crowd needs to accept that the 4E crowd is not their enemy and the 4E crowd needs to realize that the 3.5/Pathfinder crowd is not their enemy.

Ok, I have been playing D&D for 30 years. When 3.0 came out, I was on-board 100%. I even did a lot of freelance work for d20 for MEG, Sword & Sorcery, and Bastion Press. I intended to give 4e the same support. The only problem is: 4E is not, in my opinion, an acceptable form of D&D.

And people are toting "Why can't we all just get along?"....that is a bunch of hippy nonsense. Wake up and smell the napalm! These two systems cannot co-exist for several reasons:

1. The RPG market is just too small to support two versions of D&D. One version struggles enough as it is. D&D has had a rocky marketing history. DO you really think you can split it in two and get two viable markets? Be realistic and look at marketing history!
2. History also shows that two RPG versions of the same genre eventually succumb to one or the other (sure some may linger, but are they really viable?). Pathfinder already has a large fanbase that grows daily, and it comes from the CORE of an established system. D&D 4e is edging themselves to the fringe, and out of existence.
3. HASBRO wants D&D to make money. If a goodly percentage of previous gamers do NOT go with the new product, don’t you think the axe is in its future? Again, be realistic, HASBRO views D&D as a minor product to begin with (take a look at there board meeting transcripts and you can see whats important to them). DO you HONESTLY think if Pathfinder does well that D&D won’t be axed? It might be axed regardless, but Pathfinder sure is not helping.

 

[Imaro]

What if they did not? What if everything I tell my players is that I'd like a balanced party (one of every role, and the rest as you see fit)? And if the party doesn't have anyone capable of diplomancing, at 2nd level already they can!

Then I think you are setting your party up for failure... or again by using the type of characters they create as a blueprint, you can create the type of game they are interested in playing... you know like in 4e where they talk about the different types of players.

You seem to be of the mindset that you want to control the type of adventures the players will experience, yet you don't want to give the players enough of a guideline so that they know what to expect, and I find myself at odds with this.

I believe that by letting players create the type of character they want and structuring my adventures around them, it creates a more enjoyable play experience for us all. Or give them enough guidelines so that they know what will be stressed in the adventure so they know in a general sense what type of PC to create.

Either way, just like in 4e, a DM will have to construct his adventures to suit his particular players choices.

You don't need customisation. Nobody cares wether I have 9 or 10 ranks in Diplomacy, or if I get a synergy bonus from Knowledge (Nobility) or Bluff. None of the customisation options I remember from 3E resulted in anything different then a better skill modifier.*

Well we will just have to disagree here. I think it's cool that in 3.5 I could have two Rogues, who were actually better at different things outside of combat. One could be a "natural" at cracking mechanical and arcane devices (Nimble Fingers) while another could be specialized in bump and snatches (Deft Hands + Skill Focus). It gives the characters schticks in the game and niches outside of combat. In 4e, with the broader skills and general two ways of improving them (Training and Focus), it's much harder to do this. In general two rogues will be about equal in skills they both take.

What's important is that someone has the ability to cover this, and that this someone can be anyone that wants to do it. It might take 1 or 2 levels to get there, but you don't have to change your entire "build" or plan for it from 1st level. It's a lot easier to grow your character organically into this. If the Paladin didn't think of picking Diplomacy, but sees the party is missing it - he can pick it up soon and be effective at it - he doesn't even lose anything major in the process. And he doesn't have to worry about "keeping it up" over several levels - he makes the decision once.

Yet it's ok to be stuck in combat "roles" as niches. Why can't my rogue be a controller? Or my wizard or fighter be a striker? As long as the areas are covered. It's a double standard, no one will usurp your combat role... but any and everyone can usurp any niche you might have outside of combat.

In the end I think it's a difference of philosophies. I run my games so my players can have fun. For me the well oiled tactical swat team play is secondary to a player getting the chance to explore and have fun with the type of character they want to. I as a DM will gladly adjust my adventures so that my players are having fun, in the areas thay want to experience. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

If someone _really_ wants to play the "dipomancer", he can still do that - without becoming useless outside of combat.

Well, what if they are willing or want to sacrifice combat capability for capability in another area or even to have a niche outside of combat that the more combat focused character can't usurp. Should they have that choice if they want too?

*) And if I have something to complain about 4E is that this is still true in 4E. Why are their no "non-combat" powers (aside from a few utilities?)? How about a "Connection" power that you can use once per Adventure (or Act?) to find someone to get your plot further. Or an "Idea" power that gives the partys sage a hint that can help solve the mystery they are trying to solve? Or an "Short-Cut" power that allows the parties tracker and guide to find a quicker route to his goal. Or heck, maybe just provides an automatic success in a skill challenge.
I hope there will be a "d20 Storyteller" or "d20 Modern" that will explore such options.

Agree with this... the problem for me is that with the wealth of 3.5 books I have available, I already have these types of things, and thus it is really hard for 4e to appeal to my groups playstyle.

 

[Aus_Snow]

And people are toting "Why can't we all just get along?"....that is a bunch of hippy nonsense. Wake up and smell the napalm! These two systems cannot co-exist for several reasons:

1. The RPG market is just too small to support two versions of D&D. One version struggles enough as it is. D&D has had a rocky marketing history. DO you really think you can split it in two and get two viable markets? Be realistic and look at marketing history!

2. History also shows that two RPG versions of the same genre eventually succumb to one or the other (sure some may linger, but are they really viable?). Pathfinder already has a large fanbase that grows daily, and it comes from the CORE of an established system. D&D 4e is edging themselves to the fringe, and out of existence.

3. HASBRO wants D&D to make money. If a goodly percentage of previous gamers do NOT go with the new product, don’t you think the axe is in its future? Again, be realistic, HASBRO views D&D as a minor product to begin with (take a look at there board meeting transcripts and you can see whats important to them). DO you HONESTLY think if Pathfinder does well that D&D won’t be axed? It might be axed regardless, but Pathfinder sure is not helping.

1. Well, it helps that the 'competition' (ha ha) isn't actually called 'D&D' then, doesn't it?

2. I very much doubt 4e is edging to the fringe, let alone out of existence (much as I couldn't care less if it did, btw) - it has the financial backing, the marketing power, the brand name. . . no, I don't think it's likely to be going anywhere anytime soon.

3. See 2, and Pathfinder will have nothing to do with it, regardless of what actually does happen.

 

[Ourph]

The RPG market is just too small to support two versions of D&D. One version struggles enough as it is. D&D has had a rocky marketing history. DO you really think you can split it in two and get two viable markets? Be realistic and look at marketing history!

Actually, history proves you wrong. In the early to mid-80s, when both D&D and AD&D existed side-by-side, D&D was at the height of its commercial success with a syndicated cartoon, comic books, novels and even action figures selling in any number of mainstream outlets in addition to both lines of the D&D RPG selling more copies than any other version has since.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Ok, I have been playing D&D for 30 years. When 3.0 came out, I was on-board 100%. I even did a lot of freelance work for d20 for MEG, Sword & Sorcery, and Bastion Press. I intended to give 4e the same support. The only problem is: 4E is not, in my opinion, an acceptable form of D&D.

And people are toting "Why can't we all just get along?"....that is a bunch of hippy nonsense. Wake up and smell the napalm! These two systems cannot co-exist for several reasons:

1. The RPG market is just too small to support two versions of D&D. One version struggles enough as it is. D&D has had a rocky marketing history. DO you really think you can split it in two and get two viable markets? Be realistic and look at marketing history!
2. History also shows that two RPG versions of the same genre eventually succumb to one or the other (sure some may linger, but are they really viable?). Pathfinder already has a large fanbase that grows daily, and it comes from the CORE of an established system. D&D 4e is edging themselves to the fringe, and out of existence.
3. HASBRO wants D&D to make money. If a goodly percentage of previous gamers do NOT go with the new product, don’t you think the axe is in its future? Again, be realistic, HASBRO views D&D as a minor product to begin with (take a look at there board meeting transcripts and you can see whats important to them). DO you HONESTLY think if Pathfinder does well that D&D won’t be axed? It might be axed regardless, but Pathfinder sure is not helping.

1. I disagree that you can't have more than one RPG filling the same niche. If Pathfinder starts syphoning off a large part of the D&D player base, then there will be reason for WotC to be concnerned. As it stands right now, I just don't think Pathfinder is large enough to be a credible threat.

2. I think this is a flawed assumption. Many RPGs vye for the same niche and D&D has had many competitors over the years. A smaller system can pick up the disaffected customers without harming D&D.

3. Of course Hasbro wants D&D to make money. If Pathfinder beats the odds and actually syphons off enough of the player base to truly marginalize D&D, then yes, Hasbro will shut it down. So what? If Pathfinder has grown to the point where they're serious competition for D&D, there will be a replacement on the market for D&D and the industry will keep chugging along. If Pathfinder doesn't syphon off enough of the player base then D&D has nothing to worry about. Pathfinder doesn't need the same numbers to survive that D&D does. Since I'm no longer personally invested with the success or failure of D&D, I'm cool with whatever happens.

 

[Firebeetle]

I just dont' like that 4e plays slower than 3e. Combats simply take longer and the fact that I get "less playing done" is what bugs me the most. I think to bump up damage or lower hit points would really have been more desirable for me.

jh

Combat takes longer, but I would not call 4e slower by any means. The combats simply involve more, I never would have dreamed of such combats in 3.5, they simply would have taken too long. In fact, I avoided combat constantly in 3.5, especially at high levels, because they took so damn long and were so SLOW. We finished a Ravenloft campaign prematurely just because we could not do more than one encounter a session.

4e combat is fast, furious, and, most of all, fun. I actually relish running combats for the first time in 25 years of gaming. Before, combats always felt like the vegetables on your plate. You have to eat, sometimes they are good, but I liked other things more. Now I've got stir-fried veggies in hot Vietnamese sauce and I'm happy. (OK, that analogy might not work for you)

Overall, I am seriously in love with 4e. I now have time to write adventures again, it is so easy to make interesting encounters without hours and hours of prep time. I can devote myself to the stuff my players really like, such as handouts and painted miniatures now. Miniatures don't just sit on the grid doing nothing after the initial moves, there is so much mobility in the figures. Heck, I finally have an answer to "How much damage has the monster taken" by indicating it is bloodied or not. I could go on for hours.

I love 4e. I've made many D&D recruits since the new edition, including many girls. The game is fun, appealing, interesting, and the biggest challenge is how to beat the monsters, not navigating the rules.This edition is going to put D&D back on the map.

 

[The Highway Man]

1. The RPG market is just too small to support two versions of D&D. One version struggles enough as it is. D&D has had a rocky marketing history. DO you really think you can split it in two and get two viable markets? Be realistic and look at marketing history!
2. History also shows that two RPG versions of the same genre eventually succumb to one or the other (sure some may linger, but are they really viable?). Pathfinder already has a large fanbase that grows daily, and it comes from the CORE of an established system. D&D 4e is edging themselves to the fringe, and out of existence.
3. HASBRO wants D&D to make money. If a goodly percentage of previous gamers do NOT go with the new product, don’t you think the axe is in its future? Again, be realistic, HASBRO views D&D as a minor product to begin with (take a look at there board meeting transcripts and you can see whats important to them). DO you HONESTLY think if Pathfinder does well that D&D won’t be axed? It might be axed regardless, but Pathfinder sure is not helping.

1. Pathfinder is not a threat to the D&D brand. They're not playing in the same ballpark at all. Anyone with a little bit of knowledge of the industry realizes that.
2. Sure. That's why you basically have games like HARP/Rolemaster, RuneQuest, and tons of other fantasy games that still live well on the market.
3. If the axe falls on D&D, then the brand is either sold to someone else or driven into the ground. If it's sold, we'll find out to whom and see what happens from there. That's not like it didn't happen before (TSR -> WotC). If the brand dies, the OGL garantees that the game will live on.

So I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

 

[Vael]

2. History also shows that two RPG versions of the same genre eventually succumb to one or the other (sure some may linger, but are they really viable?). Pathfinder already has a large fanbase that grows daily, and it comes from the CORE of an established system. D&D 4e is edging themselves to the fringe, and out of existence.

Nerdrage is so cute. First, 4e has done very well in sales, so I doubt it's going anywhere. Second, while annecdotal evidence is weak at best, I'd point out my current gaming group has 2 newcomers, 4e is their first PnP RPG. These are not people that are going to go Pathfinder. 4e has done something Pathfinder cannot easily do, bring new players into the fold.

It's a pity the digital components for 4e have stalled, I think they're going to do more for spreading DnD and RPGs in general. But I find the idea that 4e is some fringe game laughable at best.

 

[jadrax]

People may wish to note that cinderember appears to be the same poster that over on the Pazio boards is claiming that Pathfider will not sell unless they change the name to Dungons and Dragons and allow people to swap their 4E books for Pathfinder ones...