DND 4E Is different! (Why is that bad?)

[Bagpuss]

How is this a rules discussion?

Because people have mentioned areas of the rules that lead to a different feel?

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

I saw a section for "Rules" and "Homebrews." I figured that this deals more with DnDs fluff and rules than anything I made up, so here we are.

Thank you for your vigilance.

I believe he is directing you to General RPG, which is the edition war forum, as in:

"General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above."

 

[Bond James Bond]

... so why stick to The Way it Used to Be?

Well first of all, I play 4E and my group doesnt intend to switch back to 3.5 (at least for the time being), but since you asked, here are a few whys I can think of:

1. High Magic is gone in 4E (as pointed out before).
2. Too much dumbing down. Nothing against simplicity, but in some parts, the new edition just falls short - especially the FR campaign setting.
3. 4E is more restictive (character roles, ability score allotment etc).

 

[feuer_faust]

I believe he is directing you to General RPG, which is the edition war forum, as in:

"General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above."

I see. I read this:

General RPG Forums The General RPG forums are for the discussion of any RPG issues and news in general. Specific D&D rules-related discussion belongs in its own forums, below.

and this:

General RPG Discussion
Discussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.

So I figured I'd play safe and post in the DND4E section. That said, a mod can push this over there if needed. A "This doesn't go here" with an example of where it should be is far more constructive, IMO, than one without (although I could've been less of a sarcastic ass.)

 

[Harr]

How is this a rules discussion?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/234834-please-remain-civil-folks.html#post4361752

VERY rude thing to do to a thread, btw, Mistwell.

 

[Gruns]

Misconception

(Snip)
3. 4E is more restictive (character roles, ability score allotment etc).

And this is what I feel is the biggest misconception about 4E.

Character roles are more restricted? Explain please. I remember my 3.5 cleric. Know what he used to do? Pretend to prepare some spells that wouldn't matter, since they would be Cure xxxxx Wounds anyway. Prefight: wand everyone up with buffs. Feebly attack in melee, or just hang back trying not to die. And then afterward, top everyone off with the Wand of Cure Light. You can't seriously argue that your options are not infinitely better in 4E... Now you are buffing while effectively contributing to the damage. You can get right in on the action or hang back unleashing the will of your deity onto your foes.

Wizard? Sleep or Magic Missile a couple of guys, and then do nothing for the rest of the day. Needless to say, low level magic user play is much better in 4E. And you aren't restricted by role anymore than you were before. No, you still aren't going to be wading into melee chopping down bad guys with your greataxe(although it's much more possible in 4E), but choose Staff of Defense, slip on some leather armor and you can at least attempt to work your magic close to the action. Thunderwaving people all over the place is just cool. Or if you prefer, you can choose to go the more traditional route and hang in the back (WAY in the back for you magic missile types) and zap people from afar. All day, every round.

Rogues? About the same. Just about every rogue in 3.5 was a Weapon Finesse type, and it's similar in 4E. Rangers? About the same. You chose either the 2weapon path, or the archer path and again, it's similar in 4E.
Fighters? Fighters in 3.5 were non-existant after the first two levels for the proficiencies and bonus feats. After that, I'll grant you had a tremendous amount of diversity but none of it was truly from the fighter class. The addition of Martial Power has doubled the number of builds to choose from, and more or less covers the main archetypes. Just because you have the title "Defender" doesn't mean you have to limit yourself. I see many Maul wileding badasses who love smashing things just as often as I see shield-bearing tanks who revel in daring enemies to try to break through their defenses.

I'm not even sure what you mean by ability score allotment. How is this different from 3.5 at all, let alone more restrictive? Do you mean the point buy system? I really don't know what you're referring to. I don't think you mean "Now in 4E Wizards have to put their best score in Int if they want to be effective" since this is the way things have been since 1E.

So again I ask, is 4E really as restrictive as you seem to think? Or is it just some preconceived notion that just isn't true...?
Later!
Gruns

 

[feuer_faust]

If anything, I find the way the classes are set up to be a lot more open-ended then third, if not jsut as open-ended. My friend ran a Dwarven Slayer (of Warhammer fame) in a store game once. To do so, he looked a little beyond the printed words, called "Ranger" a "Slayer" and ran around in just his pants in-game.

My impression is that, if anything, 4E is very much like original DnD: all classes have a place and meaningful function in the party, and roleplaying and setting rules have been omitted (people here seemed about 50/50 on liking 'social' rules or despising them). Now, I'm not saying that everyone should play 4th edition... its very much the 'Action Movie' of DnD, as opposed to the 'Novel' that 3rd edition is.

And as a fan of both (gasp), I'm just curious to see how much of the 4E dislike is from a given conrete reason, and how much is "I don't like it." (A guy I know simply refuses to try it becuase 'He doesn't like it'. No reasons offered, just doesn't like it.)

 

[Darkwolf71]

While I feel that everybody is free to like or dislike 4e as much as they want, this argument feels very incomplete to me. "most don't like change merely for the sake of change" is a statement I can accept as being true without further support. But the implication is that 4e has changes that were made purely for the sake of having a change. I'd like some evidence and examples of that. I don't think it is true. As it stands, argument A simply hangs around without proving anything.

"Opprotunity Attacks"

There was absolutley no reason to change from the familiar Attack of Opprotunity. (I have my own oppinions as to why the change was actually made, but game-wise there is no good reason.)

 

[RigaMortus2]

3. 4E is more restictive (character roles, ability score allotment etc).

Can you expand upon this? What about character roles do you feel are restrictive? Character roles are just a label so that players have some idea what a class can do. So a new player won't come around and pick a Wizard and assume he is like Gandalf and attempt to dual wield a staff and sword in the middle of melee combat. It's no more restrictive than Class Names. "You mean only a Fighter can fight?"

And how exactly is ability score allotment restrictive? If anything, it is much more broad. You don't get any negatives on your abilities any more due to race. You gain a +2 in any two scores of your choice every 4 tier levels, in addition to all your scores getting bumped up +1 at paragon and epic tier. How is that restrictive? That is more than 3E gave you.

Also, there was a lot more MAD in 3E. Just look at the Monk or Pally. Now, each class has only 2 or 3 (at the most) ability scores they need to juggle (ie keep up to par).

And speaking of Paladin, they are less restrictive just simply based on the alignment issue (as well as Paladin code, or the lack there of).

 

[RigaMortus2]

"Opprotunity Attacks"

There was absolutley no reason to change from the familiar Attack of Opprotunity. (I have my own oppinions as to why the change was actually made, but game-wise there is no good reason.)

Actually, there was a reason they renamed it (whether you accept it as a valid reason or not is up to you I guess). Opportunity Attacks are a type of Opportunity Action. I think they renamed it to keep the names more in tune when you read them. An Opportunity Attack is one type of Opportunity Action, one which every character gets. And you only get one Opportunity Action per combatant's turn. So if you take a different type of Opportunity Action, and an enemy provokes in the same turn, you can't take your Opportunity Attack.

I suppose they could have kept it called Attack of Opportunity, but it doesn't mesh well with the name "Opportunity Action". Perhaps they could have named that Action of Opportunity?