Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

[rounser]

I'm not trying to pick on you or ridicule you

Don't flatter yourself.

Maybe you can explain this further?

The implied setting no longer inspires me and invites me to build on it or subtract from it, which is it's job. Instead, it actively pisses me off this time round, such that my desire to tinker with it is gone. It fails at being a good foundation for D&D for me, which means the game as a whole becomes unappealing.

I don't want to wave the flag for a game which has lame stuff like dragonborn and warlords staring up at me from it's pages in the core PHB. I know you're happy to ignore it, but I suspect from the tone of your post that you have an agenda, and that you're just a 4E fanboy in sheep's clothing (and therefore unable to be reasoned with on this issue), pretending to be a neutral party.

What raises my hackles is the idea that "I don't like it therefore it's badly designed", which is pretty much what Rounser is saying here.

The design is fine. Not liking it is fine. Trying to present your personal preferences as some sort of objective standard (this rule is a bad rule is pretty objective) is not.

I've loaded my bases with IMOs, mostly. Maybe I left some out in stressing my points - pretend they're in there for me if you like, because that's the intention.

 

[pemerton]

Well, then why is it only rangers can use two weapons? That's where my problem comes from - I'm told "Rangers are just martial fighters who use two weapons, they don't need the nature guy fluff," and I'm told after that "No no, this ability follows their wise mentor fluff, they're not just martial fighters."

To me, this simply shows that the PHB does not cover every conceivable fantasy character concept. (And I'm not one of those who asserts the contrary.) For a non-wise-hunter two weapon fighter I think you need to either play a Rogue with two weapon fighting feats, or else wait for a book to come out with a Swashbuckler core class, or else work out your own Swashbuckler core class (probably by mixing a touch of Ranger with a dash of Rogue).

 

[Fenes]

I think at present, 4E is incomplete anyway. Once it has a few dozens of additional classes and races, and a lot more feats, path choices and powers, it should look different.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think at present, 4E is incomplete anyway. Once it has a few dozens of additional classes and races, and a lot more feats, path choices and powers, it should look different.

So you're saying Wizards shipped us and wants us to pay for an incomplete product? ;p

 

[Fenes]

So you're saying Wizards shipped us and wants us to pay for an incomplete product? ;p

No, the individual products are complete, but the edition is not. I could not convert my current campaign, for example, if I wanted to.

 

[Gothmog]

The implied setting no longer inspires me and invites me to build on it or subtract from it, which is it's job. Instead, it actively pisses me off this time round, such that my desire to tinker with it is gone. It fails at being a good foundation for D&D for me, which means the game as a whole becomes unappealing.

I don't want to wave the flag for a game which has lame stuff like dragonborn and warlords staring up at me from it's pages in the core PHB. I know you're happy to ignore it, but I suspect from the tone of your post that you have an agenda, and that you're just a 4E fanboy in sheep's clothing (and therefore unable to be reasoned with on this issue), pretending to be a neutral party.

Ok, your position makes more sense to me now, and its a valid point. If the game doesn't inspire you to want to play it and build your own world, then its a taste issue, which is perfectly valid. I know I felt the same way about 3e, and its one of the reasons I became a big fan of Savage Worlds and WHFRP2, and went to them for a long time for my gaming needs. I know having monks and sorcerers (cheap wizard knockoffs) in 3e felt jarring and wrong to me in the same way having warlords in 4e bugs you.

I do admit I really enjoy 4e so far, because it corrects a lot of what I thought was wrong with 3e, and the new cosmology, flavor, and tone of the game does inspire me in a way no version of D&D has since 1e AD&D. The few things I don't like in 4e are easily changed, unlike 3e where I would have had to make sweeping changes to the whole system. Does that mean 3e is a horrible system or badly designed? Not necessarily, although I feel the math was way off, a lot of people still enjoy it. Ultimately, any edition of D&D is what you make it, and not every edition is "D&D" to everybody. 3e wasn't even close to D&D for me, and 4e isn't for you- thats cool. I don't have any agenda other than wanting to have a fun game for me and my friends to play, and now that I understand your position, I can respect it. 4e D&D isn't a moral affront or betrayal by WotC, its just a game that isn't to your taste, much like 3e wasn't to my taste. So play whatever is fun for you and your group and don't stress so badly over something silly like a game.

 

[ironvyper]

As different as the class and power system is now from any previous editions i think they could have solved quite a few of these issues if they just went totally classless. It would help make sure it was different enough to avoid some of the comparisons to older editions and wouldn't have had that same feeling of limiting player choice so badly. It would also be much easier to convert older character concepts without losing the whole library of 3e splatbooks.

The evening out of attack bonuses, saves and HP get rid of a lot of the issues that would be caused by that in 3e and the powers system would be perfect for a classless game. Pick and choose a few of column A, 2 of column B, and 1 of column C.

 

[The Little Raven]

It doesn't patch up the big problem of "Why can only this class do this?" though.

What you're calling a problem is a fundamental feature of class systems: classes are distinctly different, so that there are reasons for every class to exist. If you start spreading a class's abilities around among the other classes, then you invalidate the reason for a class system: distinct archetypes that are self-contained.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The implied setting no longer inspires me and invites me to build on it or subtract from it, which is it's job. Instead, it actively pisses me off this time round, such that my desire to tinker with it is gone. It fails at being a good foundation for D&D for me, which means the game as a whole becomes unappealing.

Whilst different things about the implied setting bother me, I can see where you're coming from, in a less extreme way. Personally, it's setting elements, specifically the personality/interest-free Primordials, the incredibly boring "default" Gods and the yawnsome Elemental Chaos (somehow even more boring that the Elemental Planes, which is an achievement, really) sap my interest in using the default setting severely, and knowing that they'll be relying on this dull-ass stuff in future somewhat dampens my enthusiasm for 4E.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What you're calling a problem is a fundamental feature of class systems: classes are distinctly different, so that there are reasons for every class to exist. If you start spreading a class's abilities around among the other classes, then you invalidate the reason for a class system: distinct archetypes that are self-contained.

I don't think you're telling him anything he doesn't know, Mourn. You're either missing his point or intentionally ignoring it.

The problem is that it doesn't make sense that only this class can do that because the abilities seem to be things that any experienced combatant with a loud voice should be able to do.

It's not like a Wizard or Cleric whose supernatural abilities are clearly just that - supernatural. It's not even like a Fighter or Rogue, because their abilties are affect themselves, and thus it's easy to believe that they're specific trained or learned abilities.

The Warlord requires a little extra suspension of disbelief for many of his abilities, particularly those that cause others to take action. I dunno if you've played 4E yet, or see your players exposed to it, but already, even though we had a Cleric, I've had people look at the Warlord's powers and go "Er why can he make me attack again? Why I can't I just attack again anyway?". The only answer, of course is "Shut up, it's a game, it doesn't have to make sense!". It's not really surprising that that answer is unsatisfying for a number of people. I do think taking 4E as a "cinematic" kind of game, and realizing that some characters thus have "metagame" abilities is important, and not something the PHB necessarily makes clear. It's especially a difference between 4E and previous version of AD&D (though VERY late 3.5E was heading this way, with Bo9S and some of the late classes/PrCs).