I don't get what you'all are saying

[Edena_of_Neith]

Hey there all, this is Edena_of_Neith. Greetings to ENWorld!

A lot of you are saying that in 4E, you are unable to ... how do you put it? ... roleplay the way you want? Play the way you want? Experience the game the way you want?

I don't understand. Could you clarify? Because I really do not understand. (Perhaps it is because I haven't played enough 3.0 and 3.5, but I am at a loss here.)

This post is not meant as a troll (so for heaven's sake, don't feed any of those trolls walking around!) I just want to know why it is so many people feel 4E 'crimps their style' as it were.

 

[Najo]

I think it is not so many feel that way as a vocal minority are just ranting because of their fears towards the new game.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Hey there, Najo.

Well, they may be afraid. But I'm not here to bash them, praise them ... or really, to remark on that subject at all.

I just want to know why people say 4E 'crimps their style' as it were. (curious look) Because I am not understanding, from reading their posts so far.

 

[FireLance]

Because who you are is defined entirely by your combat role. If you are a "striker", you job is to deal massive amounts of damage to single opponents in combat and because your combat role completely overshadows every other aspect of your character, the fact that you can be secretive and mysterious, or charming and debonair, or even quiet and unassuming out of combat is completely irrelevant.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Hey there, FireLance. Nice to see you again.

I remember something like that back in OD&D. Elves were always fighter/wizards. Halflings were always thieves. Dwarves were always fighters.

But we were able to work around those restrictions. We had fun in spite of those restrictions (and heh, we overthrew those restrictions, when we got tired of them! )

Is this not possible in 4E?

 

[Cirex]

I see two possible answers, however, those are just my opinion :

1) 3.0 and 3.5 had a wide array of mechanical things that encouraged, somewhat, roleplaying : Many prestige classes, secondary skills (craft, in example), many magical items with different uses (disguise hat comes to mind) for both serious business or random ones. 4e removed all of that, to give a more solid game, mechanically wise, and let PCs and DMs come with their stuff to roleplay themselves. Your character can craft? Just say he crafts, no need to roll. Or maybe he does, if he wants to craft something in particular.

2) Minis and a battlegrid being almost a must. With distances, area effects and many powers requiring a grid, some roleplayers think it takes them away from RPing every hit, every miss, everything that happens. Totally understandable. I'm not very good at describing combat effects, but I tried. Since I play with minis, I don't do it, I'm usually too focussed on the tactics and the positioning of the players and my monsters.

 

[FireLance]

Is this not possible in 4E?

I'm fairly sure I can do it. I gather that some others find it to be hard, though.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I always thought of 3.0 as having the most Open Architecture. The most possible Player Choice. The most nasty and villainously vile min/max combos to give headaches to DMs with.

So, they sorta went back to an OD&D type approach, did they? A simplified system like OD&D, where options are limited?

(considers that)

EDIT: It sounds like a situation where I - if I were DMing - would combine 3E and 4E. Use 4E as the base, and pile 3E on top of it. (Sort of a variant of what we did historically with the restrictive rules of OD&D)

EDIT: Example:

At first, elves had to be fighter/mages.
Then, with 1E, elves could be multi-classed (a lot of things) but had level limits.
Then, with early 2E, elves could be multi-classed, with more classes open to them and higher level limits.
Then, with later 2E, elves could be multi-classed, in most classes with no level limits. And we had the bladesinger And High Magic. And lots of elven goodness (and even more good drow goodness.)
Then, with 3E, we had elves who could be anything they wanted to be, plus Prestige Classes and whatnot, and have all the elven goodness you could talk the DM into letting you have (in one variant of the bladesinger, she could cast ANY arcane spells she wanted AND fight simultaneously AND wear armor AND ... lol)

And so on. Dwarves could only be fighters, then they could be really nasty fighters, then eventually they could be anything they wanted to be (eat your hearts out, elves! )

Perhaps 4E will evolve like this?

 

[Toric_Arthendain]

I think it is not so many feel that way as a vocal minority are just ranting because of their fears towards the new game.

Judging by a few of the polls conducted here lately, I'm not sure minority is an appropriate term to describe those who don't like 4e.

To answer the OP, I'm not sure the biggest complaint is being unable to roleplay a certain way. I believe the majority of complaints revolve around 4e not feeling like D&D. Races and classes have been removed and replaced by several that have never appeared in previous editions of D&D. The Vancian magic system is gone and gone with it are the huge lists of spells that could be chosen from, replaced by a set list of powers that provide a totally different feel. Alignment is revamped to an extent that it no longer resembles anything from previous editions, generating complaints that it should have been left alone or removed altogether. The roles served by the classes are too limiting (controller, striker, etc.) and seem too videogamey for many.

Regarding roleplaying, I think that many that dislike 4e believe the strong emphasis on combat abilities lessens the roleplaying experience. I'm not sure this is true and wouldn't be able to make a judgement until actually playing a session or three.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Ah, ok. Thanks, Toric. Thanks much for the detailed answer.

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith