Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SenseiMike" data-source="post: 4479597" data-attributes="member: 77571">My own problems with 4E are numerous.  I've read many of the supporters of 4E, and I can see where they're coming from.  Perhaps my own experience of running and playing D&D in all of its incarnations was quite different.   The OP pointed out the interdependence of the roles assigned to classes in the game, and I've seen the ubiquitous response, "There's nothing in the rules that say you need to have a Striker, Controller, Defender, etc."  Like any RPG, no rules system ever says you must do this, you need to do that.  They all have the standard qualifier that says that these rules are meant to be guidelines.   Of course, if you're a writer who wants to write adventures for Dungeon Magazine you have to follow the manner to which the game operates if you expect to have an adventure of yours published, so those aren't really guidelines, are they?  Every adventure I've read for 4E is designed around specific paradigms as presented in rules in the DMG.  One paradigm is the five person party, where each role is represented by at least one player.  If you are missing a specific role, it goes on to tell you what problems the PCs will face and how to adjust the game accordingly so you don't kill them off.   Granted, the other versions of the game had those roles, more or less, but in truth it really wasn't an issue for the DM to worry about if the PCs went along without a Cleric.  That was the party's problem, not the DM's.   Another paradigm this game rigidly follows is that, of the PC party, all of them will be competent in their specific roles.  Note that the game does not have rules that say "Roll 3d6 for each stat."  In fact, it doesn't really want you rolling for stats at all.  They would rather take the six general stats and place them where you want, or point-buy them.  This is because of the paradigm at work in the design of the adventures they've laid out.  If you go in there playing a Fighter with a 10 STR, you're a liability for the rest of the party.  Yes, some people want to play a Fighter with a low primary stat and higher stats such as DEX or CON, but the 4E devotee would recommend that that player play something like a Rogue or a Ranger where such stats might come in handy.   At this point, D&D 4E has ceased to be a role-playing game and is a wargame with certain role-playing elements.  You can't really play the character you want.  Someone on this thread mentioned how much "depth" the 4E Classes have; I'm sorry, but I nearly fell out of my seat laughing at that statement.   The previous editions did not require such interdependency among the party members.  I'm sorry, I used the word "require."  I should say "suggest."  But the previous editions were truly more about role-playing than they were about min-maxing for competence.  That's what's missing in 4E.   Ironically, in their quest to make characters as specifically competent in their roles, they've also sort of hamstrung them in the event the party becomes separated.  In previous editions, a PC who was separated from his party could have some measure of competence against enemies because in those editions encounters were not specifically tailored to meet a party of five that had all the aforementioned roles.  Sure, he might also be very well overmatched, but this wasn't a guaranteed situation as it is in every 4E published adventure I've read.   Other problems I had were the Encounter Powers, the nature of Paladins and Wizards, and Ritual Spells.  One other person on this forum pointed out the weird nature of the Encounter Powers, being something out of a videogame designed for game balance than something that puts you into a fantasy world, so I won't go there.  And he mentioned how pathetically weak and inflexible the 4E Wizard has become.  So, I'll focus on Paladins.   I've always liked Paladins.  In 1E and 2E, these people were exceptional Fighters who were blessed with powers that comes from living a Good life better than most mortals can.  For some reason which I believe relates to this concept, Wizards of the Coast designers had it out for the Paladin.  In 3.x, they democratized the Paladin, allowing any race to be a Paladin, and basically made him less competent a warrior than the Fighter, provided he didn't multi-class.  4E further emasculated the Paladin by weakening him to the point that he's not really on par with the Fighter in overall ability, and that his fighting skill comes from his faith in any particular deity, good or evil.   Now, I know the argument that the 4E classes aren't meant to be taken too literally, that they're more for an abstract paradigm.  If you want to be a warrior of the faith but be a competent combatant or an archer, play a Fighter or a Ranger, the 4E fan will tell me.  That is an inherent flaw.  You see, if I have to play a different class to get to the character concept that I'm looking for, then once again this game has ceased to be a role-playing game and is something different.  The DM isn't going to look at my Lawful Good Fighter as anything but a Lawful Good Fighter, not a Paladin.  He's not going to be treated like a Paladin, even if he takes the ridiculous multi-class feat for the Paladin's abilities.  Also, by allowing any deity to employ Paladins in this manner basically flies in the face of what Paladins are supposed to be, and the nature of the universe in general.   Some have said that 4E is an easier game to DM.  To me, I wonder if there's a bit of laziness at work here.  I've never personally had a problem with any game I've run, as I've got great organizational skills and a strong work ethic.   As a DM who has run 4E, this game bugs me on other issues as well.  I don't like Minions; I think they're a patronizing monster.  There's nothing less satisfying than wasting an Encounter or a Daily Power on a Minion.  I don't like what they did to Dragons, and I don't like how monster special abilities are handled now.  It used to be that a certain ability was guaranteed to come back in the combat encounter provided the monster lived.  Now, on some powers, you have to roll a certain number on a d6, hoping beyond hope that it'll come back for you to use.  It's quite frustrating to see that your precious dragon's fire breath isn't going to come up because you didn't roll a five or a six.   While we're talking about monsters.... oh, never mind.   4E is a travesty.  As a writer, and as a gamer, I find this edition of D&D to be the worst edition.  There are so many things wrong and bad about this game that it would take a huge article, perhaps its own blog, to list them all.   For those of you who love this game, bear in mind that I'm not trying to dissuade you from playing.  Enjoy the game.  For me, it's a gigantic letdown.  I bear no 4E player ill-will, but I do insist that you try to see things from the point of view of those of us who played a game where a Wizard was once something to be feared, with a Fireball that could wipe out entire formations of troops in one blast and could cast Wish when he could achieve that level, where Dragons were truly awesome, and when Dungeons and Dragons was something wonderful, that under a good DM could take you to some epic places.  4E has lost that wonder.</blockquote>

Verification