A "naysayer's" review of 4E

[Derren]

Don't worry about people saying that you are not open minded.

On this board "open minded" means liking 4E (or rather thinking 4E is the best thing ever). If you don't like it you are by definition a close minded hater.

 

[Heselbine]

Monsters... I was very frustrated with the MM, as I think running monsters have become more complicated for "less-tactically inclined" DMs like me.

I think this is an entirely fair point. If you don't get your kicks from interesting tactics, then 4e probably isn't going to float your boat. Personally, I find it great, but I can understand your POV.

I liked that DMG offers "quick" templates for statting NPCs as "PC-ish" and also some monster templates, but I would have wanted a *CONCRETE*, step-by-step example of how you start from a unique concept and progress to design your own monsters. Or how you modify an existing stat block to fit your concept. Maybe I just didn't notice that part? I *think* there was something about "look up a creature of an appropriate level and model the abilities from there", but that's not what I mean. I'm a veteran DM, and I shudder at the thought of novice DMs trying to digest this system. The trap system is far more complicated than in 3E, and there was no actual rules for designing them yourself -- unless I missed it, too?

This, though I'm struggling with. Did you ever try and construct a monster in 3e? This is way, way easier than that. I've already constructed more monsters in 4e than I did in 8 years with 3e.

 

[Primal]

I'm a 4e advocate, and I think this conclusion is very objective, and spot on.

I wish to add that story-oriented groups probably will get a *lot* out of it -- maybe even a lot more than out of 3E. If the DM really understands how the new NPC/monster design system works and enjoys using it, I think he'll truly shine with this system. The hardest part for the players is understanding the group "dynamics" and roles, and keeping track of all the different conditions/marks/triggers/saves/etcetera. Such groups will definitely enjoy the game more than any edition ever before -- as long as the DM doesn't use maps designed by Mike Mearls!

 

[Primal]

Don't worry about people saying that you are not open minded.

On this board "open minded" means liking 4E (or rather thinking 4E is the best thing ever). If you don't like it you are by definition a close minded hater.

Well, I *have* been rather prejudiced towards 4E, but the thing is that a lot of the stuff featured in 4E excerpts lately had shifted my attitude somewhat. For example, skill challenges and rituals are *great* in 4E. Most of the stuff wasn't that great for me, but I can see a lot of groups getting more out of the system than out of 3E.

My overall impression was that DMing 4E would feel too intimidating for me, and I would have to come up with a lot of logical and consistent explanations to make the system work for me and my players. Would I try it as a player? As soon as PHB 2 and the "Power Books" are out, definitely.

 

[ShadowyFigure]

has anyone missed how the Skill Training feat is redundant to multi-classing feats. For a single feat I get a trained skill form the class, and a power/feature usable once an encounter.

Skill Training is worthless on pure mechanics, however if your going for fluff I suppose it can do its job.

 

[Henry]

For some reason when I think of the idea that anyone can potentially do Rituals, I am reminded of Angel, Wesley, or Giles from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series -- they performed magical rituals quite frequently, despite not being mages themselves. They broke out the components, candles, books, etc. and read out of a book, which fits the flavor of Rituals perfectly. I'm sure there are other book and movie examples of non-mages doing magic in a similar fashion, but I'm blanking right now.

 

[AllisterH]

Advantages of Skill Training

1. No stat requirement
2. Can be taken more than once
3. Can be taken for a class skill.

 

[BlackMoria]

Thanks for your perspective, Primal.

Honest and open minded. I don't know why some people decry that someone is not openminded if they read the book and come to the conclusion that 4e is not the be all / end all for them. Being closed minded is not even trying to read the books at all - and there are some who will not even do that.

It seems that if you say something negative about 4e, there are a few people who are willing to dogpile you for it. Your opinion has a much weight as theirs. We call that respecting viewpoints where I come from.

 

[drjones]

Don't worry about people saying that you are not open minded.

On this board "open minded" means liking 4E (or rather thinking 4E is the best thing ever). If you don't like it you are by definition a close minded hater.

It's like comedy:

I'm open minded if I don't immediately shout down everything you say.
You are open minded if you change your opinion to agree with mine.

Thus everyone claims to be open minded, but few are.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

has anyone missed how the Skill Training feat is redundant to multi-classing feats. For a single feat I get a trained skill form the class, and a power/feature usable once an encounter.

Skill Training is worthless on pure mechanics, however if your going for fluff I suppose it can do its job.

It depends. You can take the multiclass feat only once. If you know you want to multiclass and happen to need the skill, take the multiclass feat. If you don't know in what to multiclass yet (but think you might want it later), or if you still don't have all the skills you wanted, pick Skill Training.