Disappointed in 4e

[pawsplay]

Not only did I not switch to 4e, but what I've heard from other people playing it and from looking at the new material, I'm becoming less of a fan all the time. A lot of it has to do with issues in the OP, especially verisimillitude and the sameness of characters, both within a class and across classes. I thought 3e already let money do too much; with 4e, the world is like one big catalog.

So I hear you, yeah.

 

[cougent]

Your hate has made you powerful.

-Samir

I know you are joking, but I wanted to use it as a springboard to say I don't see hatred, I see disappointment in the OP. He was excited, he looked forward to it, and he has played it; but it just leaves him lacking.

I was not looking forward to it, but I have read the core books, and it just left me lacking also. I have been told by others to "play it, it is fun" and that may be true and I will probably play it soon, and it may well be LOADS of fun; but that still does not erase the lack of WOW (excitement, not MMO) feeling that I just don't have for it. Other games are also fun when I play them, but I don't have excitement for them either. I used to have excitement for the game, this version just does not bring that out.

This is not appropriate behaviour for EN World.

You are welcome to disagree with the post, and offer your opinions why, in the spirit of a discussion forum.

You are welcome to not participate in the thread if it doesn't interest you.

You are not welcome to malign the poster for his opinions, even you have heard other people express them before.

Folks, please take the above into account before posting. You don't have to post.

[Emphasis mine]
I am tempted to sig quote this, it almost needs to appear in every single thread on the site these days!

 

[LostSoul]

4) The hit point spike. This is just great. HP has been inflated, damage reduced, so combats take forever. Add to this the whole "what is HP" argument, and then you begin wondering the difference between a miss and a hit.

Combats in my game are almost always 5 rounds. I keep track on graph paper, and I have all the sheets, so I checked the other day; except the really tough and easy fights, they are almost always 5 rounds.

The difference between a hit and a miss is that you are that much closer to winning.

 

[Irda Ranger]

<snip mod words>

Morrus is so badass he doesn't even need Moderator Voice.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

When Wizards first announced 4e, I was really excited. I thought it would be really cool. So, a few months before it came out, I went out and sold all my 3.x books to Half Price Books.

While I agree with most of your complaints about 4E, I mostly got held up on this. Why on earth would you sell all your books without even seeing the new rules system first? Not only that, but months in advance! Did you just decide to stop playing entirely till 4E came out? Or were you afraid the 3E book value would soon plummet?

I know, there's the SRD, not impossible to play with no books. It still seems rather silly, though.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Every character seems to be plotted out in advance.
No where close to what 3E required, with planning for Feats, PrCs, etc.


Wanna play a ranger with a greatsword? Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery?
I don't think you "get" what the Classes "are" in 4E. A Fighter IS a Defender. This is non-optional. Defenders don't do archery. That's what Strikers do. If you want to play a Striker, play a Striker.


In our group, we found ourselves wanting a lot of stuff we had in 3e.
You mean from the Core 3, or from your 8 years of supplements?


By attempting to balance this, they have created a world that feels fake.
I agree it feels fake; but balance isn't the problem. It's how game rules are divorced from any sense of what's actually happening in the game. It's too abstract.

It doesn't help that the power names and fluff can be very much more precise than the actual rules. If the names/fluff were as abstract as the actual power, and you were encouraged to "write your own fluff" every time (rather than be presented with an "official" version) I think you it would actually improve the game. Which is a bit odd, since that's purely a complaint about the presentation of the mechanics, not the mechanics.


I thought "Hey, everyone gets cool powers" was a good goal...until I read what our good friends at WoTC came up with.
lol. So true.


Wizards are boring and uninteresting.
Only relative to previous editions (when the were often "too good"). I think they're pretty fairly balanced vs. the other 4E classes.

I had visions of rituals for animating the dead, binding otherworldly creatures to your service, curses, and calling down thunderstorms, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Now? We have all the utility spells, except they cost money to cast, because apparently all one needs to know what to do with magic is to throw lightning at other people, as those are your powers.
I'm not sure what your beef is here. I love Rituals.


"Give us money!"

And those three words sum up 4th edition.
As opposed to which previous edition? TSR-WotC-Hasbro has been a for-profit firm since the 70s. Do you think the wrote The Complete Priest's Handbook as a pure form of artistic expression?

-----

Your other points I agree with. I'm also not thrilled with 4E. But the above is my take on some of your points which seem "off" to me.

 

[Stalker0]

Wanna play a ranger with a greatsword? Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery?
I don't think you "get" what the Classes "are" in 4E. A Fighter IS a Defender. This is non-optional. Defenders don't do archery. That's what Strikers do. If you want to play a Striker, play a Striker.

[\QUOTE]

I think that's exactly his beef with the system. If I play an archery, I take on the baggage of being a ranger and the wilderness flavor behind it.

The one nice thing about the 3.5 fighter was that he was pretty flexible. From his core, you could create any kind of fighter guy you wanted, TWF, big sword, sword/shield, archer, polearm specialist, etc.

There are no "generic" classes in 4e. Everyone has a specific niche, which tends to force a certain kind of flavor on each class, and I can see how its problematic.

 

[bagger245]

So all archer based guys are rangers, until WOTc publishes a fighter bow and arrow build? Or because fighters are defenders, he will never go near bow and arrows coz he wont be fulfilling his role?

or maybe wotc will publish a non wilderness ranger to compensate that? shall we talk about rogues and their two daggers in each hand?

 

[Kishin]

So what are we looking at for this one? Over/under 8 pages? Someone get the pool going.

"Give us money!"

And those three words sum up 4th edition.

I will never, ever understand why the internet gets so infuriated about the concept of a company striving to make money. I'm not sure what else is to be expected of a business enterprise. It always ends up looking like this:

Penny Arcade! - Arms Aren't Even That Cool

 

[bagger245]

My solution: Don't treat each editions of D&D as an upgrade. Find the editions that you are more comfortable with and stick with it. Then get some ideas off other editions and house rule it into your game.

As for the OP, seems to me that you love 3.5. Stick with it, and don't get influence by what people tell you about other games unless you've played it. I am sorry that you sold off your 3.5 collection. You could try to like 4th ed and wait patiently til it gets convoluted with splats and accessories over 8 years and maybe you will like it at the end.