Forked Thread: Name exactly what 4E is "missing"

[Tian Zi]

One thing 4.e is missing is the ability to play without a battle map. That there may be the heart and soul that some feel is missing.

Kudos to whoever figures out a good way to house rule that!

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Y a know people keep saying 3.5 ya had to have a battle map...but I never use one...it really isn't that hard. So maybe ya can do without one in 4e....I dont think ya can really but maybe.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I'm pretty sure I could run 4E without a battlemat, but it strikes me that a lot of the fun in combat comes from the tactical playstyle that battlemats encourage.

I'm still running 3.5, by the by, but I've run 4E a couple times and I want to give it another shot. I'm not sure I was entirely fair to it at first.

 

[Jack99]

Y a know people keep saying 3.5 ya had to have a battle map...but I never use one...it really isn't that hard. So maybe ya can do without one in 4e....I dont think ya can really but maybe.

Plenty of regular posters have stated they have run 4e with no battlemat, for what it is worth.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I feel that 4e is missing "soul" that's a very hard thing to describe and quantify, but right now D&D just feels like a hollow shell of what it once was...

The mechanics are good, as it's streamlined and easy to run. But it's things like breadth and depth to characters and the world that I feel is lacking. Perhaps it's that most of the monster manual often seems bland to me. Perhaps it's that I feel that the designers took too much of the safe road in trying to develop things.

Certainly the lack of the 4 other alignments is one aspect of that, and while it's easy to reinstate alignments such as chaotic good, chaotic neutral, lawful neutral and lawful evil with no problem at all, as most of the impact that alignment had hardly affects the game anymore. I think it's the fact that many of the default assumptions feel forced and too restrictive.

Despite their being the ability to mechanically have many things that 3e did not, and that many character classes can do more with their abilities. It just feels that imagination in the game is lacking.

Now I'll say that many of the Dragon and Dungeon articles are starting to fix some of these problems. But it still needs to work things out.

But right now it feels like I have the latest version of Windows that I have to suffer with, where I have to wait until there's a Service Pack that comes along and fixes a lot of problems.

 

[Mercule]

I'm pretty sure I could run 4E without a battlemat, but it strikes me that a lot of the fun in combat comes from the tactical playstyle that battlemats encourage.

I'm quite certain I could, and it'd play out a lot like 1e/2e did without a mat.

On the other hand, I played 1e/2e for years without a mat and started using one shortly before 3e was announced. I found using a mat with 1e/2e was quite beneficial and really cut down on a lot of mis-communication/mis-interpretation in combat. I could run any edition of D&D without a mat, but I don't think I want to.

 

[Tian Zi]

I found using a mat with 1e/2e was quite beneficial and really cut down on a lot of mis-communication/mis-interpretation in combat.

[sarcasm]
You're rose colored glasses aren't working! Stop bringing your actual experiences into my nostalgia please. 1e/2e were perfect blends of fluff, realism, heart, soul, imagination and fun that can never be recaptured. Please toe the company line.
[/sarcasm]

4e is a great system, but it can't be your imagination, it can't give you the wonder you had in your early teens, it can't give you the sense of discovering D&D for the first time. Unless you let it.

 

[Mercule]

it can't give you the wonder you had in your early teens

Dude, my teenage years are teens, now. The only way I can recapture that outlook on life is a combination of brain damage and taking drugs that intentionally screw up my hormonal balance. All in all, I rather like not being insane, thanks.

 

[The_Gneech]

...it can't give you the wonder you had in your early teens, it can't give you the sense of discovering D&D for the first time. Unless you let it.

At the risk of sounding snarky, 3E did. (For me, at least.) And I started with a Basic Set, m'self. (Cardboard chits instead of a d20, baby!)

So for me the 3E/4E divide isn't just a matter of nostalgia. There really is a quantum difference somewhere.

-The Gneech

 

[Mercule]

At the risk of sounding snarky, 3E did. (For me, at least.) And I started with a Basic Set, m'self. (Cardboard chits instead of a d20, baby!)

So for me the 3E/4E divide isn't just a matter of nostalgia. There really is a quantum difference somewhere.

I really think 3e and 4e are both branches of 2e, more than 4e being descended from 3e. 3e focused on the more simulationist bits, while 4e takes a hard gamist stance. Actually, I doubt the DNA is that specific, but I'm sure you get the point.

For those who prefer the aspects 3e hardened, 3e is going to feel more like classic D&D. For those who prefer the aspects 4e hardened, 4e is going to feel more old school.

I see as many changes between 2e and 3e as I do between 2e and 4e. It may be that 4e feels like a more radical change because some of 3e's changes had to be backed out and replaced to get where 4e went.

I'm also not counting the 2.5e stuff because 1) I never really used them, just read them; and 2) if you include some late 3.5 options, like recharge magic or the alternate death and dying saves in Unearthed Arcana, 4e starts to show some parallels.