A "naysayer's" review of 4E

[drjones]

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.

And there are skills which are not given by multiclassing, for example my gnome wizard wanted training in sneak because it is important for hiding and for moving invis undetected (if you move inivis you have to make stealth checks vs passive perception to not be 'heard' if heard they can attack your square at -5) but multiclassing thief gives you thievery as a trained skill not stealth. So no, it is not a fluff only feat.

 

[Primal]

One thing I forgot from my review: the "power format" is really clear and explicit to read and understand. I like how they used the "keywords" to identify different aspects of the powers, and whatever is changed from 4E to 5E eventually, I hope this format is used to describe all the spells/abilities/class features in the game.

 

[smathis]

Thanks, Primal.

I was expecting a lot more hyperbole and, well, naysaying in the review after reading the title. But what I found was an honest, well-written and reasonable review of 4e.

It was totally refreshing.

Thanks.

P.S. I'm glad to see you still have an open-mind about 4e. I'm not sure even I could say that at this point.

 

[AllisterH]

First of all, thanks Primal for a very honest review.

I agree with you regarding the feats. Those are weak (and bland for the most part), and there are far fewer than we were led to believe.


Cheers

I tend to disagree based on a few points.

1. Most of the feats scale.Toughness, Weapon Focus etc are all "good" choices as you level.

2. The design ethos behind feats were that they were NOT supposed to define a character. Your powers should. Think of it like this. What's more important to a warblade or sorceror. His manoeuvers/spells or his feats?

3. THe math behind it means a lot more. A +1 to hit for example means a lot more in 4E than it did in 3E. It is much rarer and how monsters are designed, it means much more. For example, in 3.x, a +1 to hit at level 18 didn't mean much as most fighters had feats that swallowed up that +1 AND the monster's defence didn't increase as fast. This was changed in 4E so that a +1 to hit means a constant 5% bonus in all Tiers.

 

[Xorn]

I felt the review was pretty open minded myself--I was just stating my opinions on the same topics. And I don't mean anything nasty when I said I think Primal's opinions on the DMG are crazy. I just do.

I really like Indiana Jones & The Crystal Skull, too. /shrug It was a really fun movie, that felt like an Indy movie, and if angels can make Nazis melt, then why can't extra dimensional beings kill russians with knowledge? Sorry, ranting a little.

 

[Gallo22]

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.

MEGA DITTO!!

 

[Jack99]

MEGA DITTO!!

Isn't dittoing Derren like a fallacy or something? Seriously. This whole pro-anti thing is getting really old.

 

[Thasmodious]

if angels can make Nazis melt, then why can't extra dimensional beings kill russians with knowledge?

Ha, completely off topic, but phrase nicely turned, sir.

I agree, Indy 4 was a lot of fun.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

Derren! Where've ya been man? We've been missing you in the 4E forums.

 

[Obryn]

Yes, it's about "getting" 4E and how it works, but I still have to insist that tactically-minded gamers and/or story-focused DMs and players (i.e. 'gamists' and 'narrativists') surely enjoy it more than 'simulationists' (i.e. people who want the game to portray/model the setting and the characters in a consistent and realistic fashion). I hope that if I ever try 4E, I'll eventually "get" it, though! At least rules-wise...

I think you're spot-on.

4e is a lousy simulation of any kind of reality.

(Ironically, I think it's a decent simulation of fantasy movies and novels - but that's another discussion for another time.)

I think it looks like a pretty fun game, though, and it definitely looks like D&D to me. I can't wait to give it a shot, since it seems to fix most of the problems I had with 3.x - namely, crazy spellcasting lookup times, polymorph, and so on.

It may introduce more problems, and I might not like it in the end. This is all fine.

Just like 3.x, 4e won't be the right game for everyone. Ironically, I think 4e caters better to an RC/1e/2e mindset than a 3e mindset.

-O