6 months later: impressions of 4e

[BryonD]

If we were able to get those things out of 3E, but find it easier to do so in 4E, how does that factor into your opinion?

I can drive nails through a plank of wood with the backside of a screwdriver, but it's nice to have a hammer.

In factors in nicely when you consider that I don't accept that it is an apples to apples comparison.

He may be able to get what 4E offers easier than he was able to get what 3E offers, that in no way implies that the full value each offers is equivalent. To the contrary, his own post rather implies the opposite to be true.

 

[Lacyon]

In factors in nicely when you consider that I don't accept that it is an apples to apples comparison.

He may be able to get what 4E offers easier than he was able to get what 3E offers, that in no way implies that the full value each offers is equivalent. To the contrary, his own post rather implies the opposite to be true.

That's quite a different opinion than the one you expressed earlier.

EDIT: That's not quite right. It's just a non-answer to my question.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The best way to broadly paint rabid 4e supporters is to say they're like rabid 4e haters - both make snide commentary about the other side and enjoy painting them with the broad brush while trying to shy away from it themselves. Oh, and they're both wrong.

3.5 is like a couch. 4e is like a sofa too, but I'm not as comfortable on it as I am with my 3.5 sofa. That isn't to say it's a bad game, it's just not one meant for me. I totally made this metaphor before, but I'm going to do it again. I'm going to use couch and sofa to designate between the two.

Some people who sat on the couch previously still like sitting there. Others liked sitting there at the time, but have since then found more comfortable seating arrangements for themselves, such as another sofa. Some never sat in my couch or ANY couch to begin with, and hate me and everyone who sits on couches because they're so mainstream. There's even a group that sat on the couch, have a different sofa, and constantly tell me how much they hate my couch now, and how much better their sofa is. On the other hand, some people on my couch have only glanced at other sofas and can't stop sticking their noses into the air to talk about how much better their couch is, despite not really knowing it as a fact. There's even a group of people who don't like couches OR sofas, but enjoy sitting on the pre-couch technology bedrock. Every now and then, a few buggers go to my couch and steal some cushions for themselves. I don't mind, because my couch and their sofa enjoy raiding each other for cushions ourselves.

 

[BryonD]

That's quite a different opinion than the one you expressed earlier.

EDIT: That's not quite right. It's just a non-answer to my question.

Shrug

Your question implicitly presumes one system to be a hammer and the other to be the back of a screwdriver, both for the application of driving nails into wood. That analogy is so asinine as to make a detailed answer pointless.

Please find me a construction related website where more people decided after using a hammer that the back of a screwdriver was actually preferable, abandoned their hammer and reverted to the screwdriver. If your comparison was at any level valid then there would be some degree of equity between people reverting to 3E and people reverting to the backs of screwdrivers.

Gothmog, and by implication of your analogy, you as well, are claiming that 3E doesn't provide the right tool for the job. But unlike the back of a screwdriver for nails, vast numbers of people find 3E to be greatly superior to 4E for story. So, I'm forced to conclude that rather than an issue with the tool, the problem is more a matter of user error.

And if someone doesn't know how to use one tool and settles for the result an easier tool provides, then they have no basis for offering a judgment on which of the two tools offers the best overall final result when used correctly.

 

[Ahglock]

Funny you mention that because in our gaming group we compared 3E vs 4E as Windows vs Mac, 4E is more streamlined and easier for new players(at least we think) some people hate it while others love it. And for many in my gaming group this is the closest comparison we can come up with

4e is like a Mac so 4e is streamlined, easier to use, but not compatible with most games.

 

[Ahglock]

I was going to write a very long post detailing my thoughts on 4e, but then I read this really good post which mostly reflected my own experiences. Kudos.

I'll just add a few observations:
* I love the way classes are balanced against one another. In my experience, in 3e fighters were good until about 5th level; casters were good from about that level on, well played caster at all levels. Also, in my view, non-casters followed a linear power curve, casters an exponential one. Put these two things together and you had a titanic power difference between classes which forced DMs to use wonky solutions to make players feel useful (i.e. anti-magic zones, et al) which made encounters unfun for some players. A solution appeared in the form of Bo9S (which I absolutely loved), but that just drew cries of power creep. Thankfully this is fixed.
.

I am not happy with how classes were balanced in 4e. In 4e IMO classes were balanced by making them all suck equally. While harder to do I'd of preferred they be balanced by making them all awesome equally.

While I think the balance issues in 3e were exaggerated a bit the balance issues were there. Assuming a non abusive player classes were mostly balanced at most levels outside a few stand out, what were you thinking spells. By taking out the charged item creation feats,(scrolls, wands, and staves) balance was fairly close to there, though yes spell casters were flat out better at high levels. I think 2e was more balanced than 3e, and about as well balanced as 4e.

Currently we are having fun playing 4e, but I am worried that as we level the sameness of powers will just end up boring us out of the game. We like tactical minis games so combat has been fun, just not very immersive or engaging.

 

[Obryn]

Shrug

Your question implicitly presumes one system to be a hammer and the other to be the back of a screwdriver, both for the application of driving nails into wood. That analogy is so asinine as to make a detailed answer pointless.

Please find me a construction related website where more people decided after using a hammer that the back of a screwdriver was actually preferable, abandoned their hammer and reverted to the screwdriver. If your comparison was at any level valid then there would be some degree of equity between people reverting to 3E and people reverting to the backs of screwdrivers.

Gothmog, and by implication of your analogy, you as well, are claiming that 3E doesn't provide the right tool for the job. But unlike the back of a screwdriver for nails, vast numbers of people find 3E to be greatly superior to 4E for story. So, I'm forced to conclude that rather than an issue with the tool, the problem is more a matter of user error.

And if someone doesn't know how to use one tool and settles for the result an easier tool provides, then they have no basis for offering a judgment on which of the two tools offers the best overall final result when used correctly.

I nominate this: Most poorly veiled edition war EVAR.

-O

 

[Herremann the Wise]

On the whole I'm slightly unhappy with 4E - although I and my group are enjoying our 4E game.

We have found it easy to adjust to mechanically; it uses the bulk of concepts we were already familiar with from 3.x. In terms of the play experience, our group plays how our group plays and so I don't think the 4E ruleset has specifically added to or detracted from our experience - which is unfortunate, it should be adding and an improvement. We use minis extensively (as well as the Dungeon tiles) and so that does not cause any issues. In the end, there is nothing in the ruleset that has made me go wow, whilst several "things" have been underwhelming. Still, as I said before, we are enjoying the overall play experience so far.

If there was something our group has come to the conclusion of, it is that the character class you play does not mean as much as what it feels like it should. Characters seem to be adventurers first, defenders/strikers/leaders/controllers second, and only then what ever class you happen to be playing third.

Personally, I think the demotion of the wizard while needed was designed in a way I really don't like. The 4E wizard simply does not feel very wizardly. The expansion of available rituals will help this somewhat but to me, I just don't like this very important aspect of the game. The wizard needed to be limited but not in this way.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[FireLance]

I am not happy with how classes were balanced in 4e. In 4e IMO classes were balanced by making them all suck equally. While harder to do I'd of preferred they be balanced by making them all awesome equally.

So, what do you feel is missing? How would you add the awesome? I'm assuming by your comment that you think the PC vs PC balance is correct, but the PC vs challenge balance is somewhat off?

 

[Mallus]

Gothmog, and by implication of your analogy, you as well, are claiming that 3E doesn't provide the right tool for the job.

Hint: they're claiming 3e doesn't provide the right tool for some jobs ie, it's not a universally bad rule system --far from it-- but it isn't right for certain people with certain goals. People want different things out of the game, does it really come as a surprise that different people prefer different rule sets in order to achieve those things?

But unlike the back of a screwdriver for nails, vast numbers of people find 3E to be greatly superior to 4E for story.

Find me a single part of 3e that makes it more conducive to storytelling than any other iteration of D&D. I've run a character/story-heavy 3e campaign for years and I know exactly how much support 3e has for that style of play; ie little to no direct support.

And if you should like to read about said campaign... 1st link, .sig. It's pretty amusing.

And if someone doesn't know how to use one tool and settles for the result an easier tool provides, then they have no basis for offering a judgment on which of the two tools offers the best overall final result when used correctly.

And if two master artisans should disagree on tools, what then?