D&D 4E How do you feel about 4E right *now*? (week of 1/21/08)

[Lizard]

Thumbs Down

Things I don't like about 4e:

Everyone has k3w1 p0w3rz.

Paladins hit a foew to give an ally an armor class bonus. (This is an example of the kind of thing I don't like; this one, particular, thing is not a dealbreaker in and of itself, but it's emblematic of the new design ethos, which seems to be "Everyone should make an attack roll every round -- attack to heal, attack to buff, attack to make your teeth clean...")

System is more tightly locked to fantasy, and to one particular style of fantasy; much harder to stretch it.

No apparent concern for the effects of raising the power bar on the world (at will heals, low-level teleports).

MMORPG-style "roles".

Combat functionality as the overwhelming factor in class design; all else is secondary.

"Exception based" monsters -- back to 2e we go!

Everyone is good at everything -- the SWSE skill system.

Impossibility of converting an existing campaign due to massive changes in "core" classes/races.

Way too much fluff in the core rules, and fluff is more integrated with the rules.
"Assumed setting" instead of encouraging DMs to be worldbuilders.

Removal of non-combat skills like profession, craft, and perform.

Regimented character development (Pick a path at 10 and again at 20) instead of freeform multiclassing.

Per-encounter and at-will powers remove challenge, or require every fight scene to be a massive, epic, knock-down, drag-out, SFX showpiece to challenge the players. No sense of building towards a climax.

Oversimplification.

"Reimagining" of things for no good reason -- who wanted river-nomad halflings or above-ground dwarves? Did the lack of these ever bother anybody?

General overall shift to the game design being about a long string of encounters, each of which happens in a seeming bubble, instead of being about heroes exploring a living world. That, more than anything, is the change in tone and style which is turning me off to 4e.

 

[Greg K]

At this point, I am givng it two thumbs down.

I agree that 3.x has some problems that need to be addressed. However, I think WOTC would have been better off sticking with one of the original intents of the SRD and incorporated the best third party solutions from the current edition into the new one. Nearly every 4e mechanical solution appears to be implemented in a manner that I and my friends dislike and/or consider inferior to solutions found in many current third party products. Add to this several needless changes and additions, lame changes under the guise of "kewl powers", and intereting changes that are merely fluff and I see what appears to be, imo, an inferior edition for our gaming preferences.

My one hope now is that a third party will provide a 3.5 product in which
1) current classes are presented as talent trees and bonus feats rather than set class abilities.
2) things like armor and weapon proficiencies are removed as automatic class features
3) first level characters receive a number of additional bonus feats based on their initial class from which to choose feats that help tailor their character to reflect their initial training.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

nMage can burn. I'd go with MRev crunch with M2nd fluff.

I do prefer oVampire, but I'd be willing to give Requiem a go.

I haven't tried out Mage, but Requiem I find is quite a good game. It is much more centred on your characters and less the world around you. So you can develop alot more intricate plots dealing with within a city itself, and not epicness like Masquerade became.

Also the inclusion of different factions adds alot to the game, you can really mix and match alot more with them. My personal favourite is the Circle of the Crone followed by the Ordo Dracul. This also makes politics more interesting since it is no-longer just Camarilla and Sabbat. They have given a more open-ended aspect to the history too, they give "ideas" but no set-history or metaplot.

I would recommend you check out Promethean and Changeling, WW new/remade one-a-year games. The nice things with these is after you buy the books that year you have the complete series and since the books are limited in number each is crammed full of interesting rules, and fluff.

 

[Dragonblade]

Thumbs down for me.

I like some of the "game-bloat" they've gotten rid of but that's about it. I like the promise of more balance between classes at different levels but have seen nothing to back that claim up.

Too little time between editions.
Too much $ invested in 3.X; unwilling to do so again for 4.X (especially if they're decreasing time between editions).
Lack of true specialist wizards (this was a real blow to me).
Was initially excited about the "more options" idea but is actually seems like we're getting less (e.g. no true specialist wizards). I see different options, not more.
Move towards the "contemporary rpg" model where the rules favor playing the game a certain way. And if you don't then you're, however indirectly, punished or made to do more work. When D&D stops being generic, it stops being D&D.
Not willing to wait till PHB & DMG 3 second printing to get things that I thought should have been there from the beginning; especially when it something thats already been around in the past.
Won't want to buy the rehash of 4.0 material when 4.5 comes out.
Not willing to pay $ for lots of fluff 'n stuff I won't use (Dragonborn, Tieflings, etc.) and that doesn't fit in my homebrew anyway.
No interest in paying extra money for things like DDI to get content I can't get anywhere else; especially as they've stated they want to increase the digital presence of the game.

I could go on but I'm not going to convince anyone here of anything at this point no matter what I say or how I say it.

I agree with Pinotage, I may take the things I like from 4E and incorporate it into my current world. That seems easier to me than a complete rehash.

jolt

3.0 has been out for 8 years. 3.5 has been out for about 5 years, however 3.5 is 99% compatible with all 3.0 material and all the changes were available for free with the SRD meaning no purchase of 3.5 was required at any time by WotC.

Since 3.0 and 3.5 are essentially the same edition, the current edition of D&D has been out for 8 years. That is plenty of time between editions. If you feel otherwise thats your perogative, but from my perspective that is an unreasonable opinion.

As far as the argument for having spent money on 3.5 goes, so what? If you are happy with 3.5 then play 3.5, but any money spent on it is irrelevant when considering a 4e purchase. Its a sunk cost.

You may feel that you have to emotionally justify having spent a lot on 3.5 books by continuing to play that edition in order to "get your money's worth". But from a purely economic perspective, the decision to buy 4e is identical regardless of whether you spent $90 on 3e or $900.

Now people not liking 4e for mechanical or fluff changes, I can understand. That is simply a matter of taste and preference. For me, I like the mechanical and fluff changes (mostly), so I'm on board with the new edition.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

nMage can burn. I'd go with MRev crunch with M2nd fluff.

I'm sorely tempted to take Mage 2nd and Werewolf 2nd Fluff and create my own nWOD compatible crunch... I LOVE the nWOD mortal rules.

 

[Wolfspider]

Since 3.0 and 3.5 are essentially the same edition, the current edition of D&D has been out for 8 years. That is plenty of time between editions. If you feel otherwise, thats fine. But from my perspective that is an unreasonable opinion.

So you really don't think that feeling otherwise is fine?

 

[Deset Gled]

What does that have to do with the 4th ED books/game?

It is completely optional and unnecessary for play.

Can people stop with that one…?

I believe the DDI issues are relevant. It's the same as people who complain about 3e being to mini-centric. Yes, it's easy to say that you can play D+D without minis. But the deeper you dig into the rules, the more you will find that things (specifically combat and magic) have been designed around a square grid system. This makes things more difficult for working without a grid system; it's an added complication to translate things back into actual distance. It is also annoying to see every single D+D book having a significant amount of text and design time spent on something that you will never use.

DDI is the same way. Sure, you'll be able to play without it. But you can also bet that a significant amount of material will be geared towards it, and some material will only be available online. It's impossible to have something like the DDI be both seamlessly integrated into the system, and completely and easily removeable for those that don't want it.

Personally, I would be a lot happier about minis if a hex grid was the default, and would be a lot more excited about the DDI if I hadn't spent that year of my life playing Everquest.

 

[Mistwell]

 

[Dragonblade]

So you really don't think that feeling otherwise is fine?

"Allow myself to introduce...myself."

I meant that I personally think its unreasonable, but if you feel that way, then thats your perogative.

 

[DaveMage]

Hey!

My old poll's been trumped!

Seriously, though, I was going to wait until after the D&D Experience to post this again, AND I suggest placing this in the "General" forum as it's posible that some who are not going 4E have stopped reading the 4E forum.

Still, numbers are about the same with a slight (7%) improvement on 4E as of this post. (Although, the longer my poll remained, the more the "thumbs down" % grew.)