Feeling short changed by 4th Ed.

[Ydars]

Jdraketh; I am not particularly invested in 3.5E (or D&D in general as I Play many games) so I don't think that I am comparing this to my favourite past edition and this is why I am dissatisified; I just think that spreading everything over 30 levels very much dilutes what you can choose at any particular level.

Having said this, from what people are posting about tactics, perhaps build is not so important in 4E and the game is more about how it is played. I can imagine this is true in combat; it is the non-combat stuff that feels a little light to me.

 

[Crothian]

it is the non-combat stuff that feels a little light to me.

Like what?

 

[jdrakeh]

Jdraketh; I am not particularly invested in 3.5E (or D&D in general as I Play many games) so I don't think that I am comparing this to my favourite past edition and this is why I am dissatisified

Well, I wasn't addressing you personally. The OP made a number of very explicit comparisons between the new edition of the game and past editions, specifically stating that he felt the new edition was incomplete because it failed to incorporate several aspects of those past editions.

I just think that spreading everything over 30 levels very much dilutes what you can choose at any particular level.

You must have hated Basic D&D, then (BECMI D&D was the first edition of D&D to implement the Level 1 to Level 30 staged power tiers).

I can imagine this is true in combat; it is the non-combat stuff that feels a little light to me.

Ironically, this makes D&D 4e more like all past editons of the game, save for one.

 

[Ydars]

Malraux; I see what you are saying, but to me, fragmenting the wizard into many "one trick pony" sub-classes is a mistake. It might work for the combat part of the game, and I am sure this will be nicely balanced (an important concern) but it makes wizards SO lame out of combat that I can't really see many people playing them. It feels like, in trying to make it so you don't actually need any class, they have completely shafted the wizard. I mean, how long will it be before summoning and controlling undead becomes old. I certainly would not want to play a wizard who could only do this for 30 levels, and the same applies to the other sub-magical disciplines.

Now I agree that 3.5E wizards were ridiculous, but now they have been bashed down too much; not in combat, but they just don't have many magical options anymore. They should have included MANY more harmless powers, like presdigitidation, that have roleplaying potential to add flavour. The same is probably true for the other classes actually.

Since magic is an important part of D&D it just feels very.........disappointing that it is SO diluted.

 

[vagabundo]

The 3.0 out-of-box characterspace was huge, the way multiclassing worked and the amount of options presented meant that the number of combinations of race/class/multiclass/prestige class was staggering. Great value for money and a great game, very much enjoyed it at the time. However their many of these combinations had (near) unplayable restrictions and could lead to player disinterest.

The core 4e characterspace is more limited, however the range of viable options has stayed around the same. You can still make characters that are not as optimised, in play, this does not make as much of a difference as the power curve is flattened. Your unoptimised character will still do some cool stuff and can still contribute in solid ways to the mechanical interactions (they could always contribute to thr RP interactions, in every edition).

I can understand a 3e player/dm coming to 4e and seeing the limitations and decrying the value that has been lost. I believe these changes are better for the game in the long run, the cleaner layout is more accessible and even newbies do not make nerfed characters and there is still places for the pro's to shine and master the game.

I cannot deny I am really looking forward to the additional content, but there is a lot of potential gaming included with the current core books.

Throw out your 3e-isms, look to the new edition with fresh eyes, you may be surprised with what you see.

*** No edition wars here, there is enough love to spread around all the editions ***

 

[ExploderWizard]

As someone who uses D&D just as one of his many games, i always thought that one of the worst things the game did was to cram every ounce of the past into every new edition. Giving individual classes more space by dropping options was a tremendous idea. And the wall of spells.... no, not to talk about that. It... hurts.

I had hoped for this chance since 2e, and 4e delivered - finally.

Wall of spells? What about the great wall of text(Thank you Chris Pramas) that is chapter 4 of the 4E PHB? Pages and pages of power statblocks. It really says something that there is a feeling of having limited choices when those choices take up as many pages as the entire 1st Ed PHB. That kind of space stretching is a money grab. I have a hard time thinking of another core rulebook that takes that much space to say so little.

 

[fuindordm]

I like 4e so far (haven't played yet), but I do agree with the OP. If they had left magic items in the DMG, they could easily have fit in more player options.

I understand their reasons: players use magic items, they don't want to introduce a 4th power source yet, summoning and shapechanging still needed work, etc. But that understanding doesn't assuage my disappointment. I feel like I just bought a hot new computer, then found out it wasn't even powerful enough to run the games I already own.

 

[Ydars]

Jdraketh; I never played/DMed any other edition of D&D apart from 3.5E "as written" because of exactly the issues I raise; wizards were SO lame at low levels in BECMI that I always house-ruled in things like cantrips. I agree that 3.5E went WAY to far to make wizards too powerful, but there were still issues of lameness at low level.

4E does have some good points because mage hand and light and a few other spells are now at-will as cantrips. I just feel that to retain the core of what we all think of as a wizard, there should have been alot more attention paid to cantrips.

Still; I can design some of my own (sigh).

 

[Ydars]

Oh and I would just like to say that, overall, I like 4E and think it is a great game. I just don't agree with this crazy idea that if you say anything bad about 4E then you keep quiet or else get labelled as a 4E hater. This attitude is what enflames these edition wars. Some of us do believe what we are writing and aren't trying to de-rail the game.

 

[vagabundo]

I like 4e so far (haven't played yet), but I do agree with the OP. If they had left magic items in the DMG, they could easily have fit in more player options.

I understand their reasons: players use magic items, they don't want to introduce a 4th power source yet, summoning and shapechanging still needed work, etc. But that understanding doesn't assuage my disappointment. I feel like I just bought a hot new computer, then found out it wasn't even powerful enough to run the games I already own.

I can understand, but, GodsHelpUsAll, NO...

This is the one change that I love, magic items in the phb is a Godsend, as someone who only DMs I am over the moon at this change.