Ok, just tell me Why

[WhatGravitas]

this rant isn't finished btw, I'll be back, I have a few more Texas steak sized bones to pick, but first I'm going to check some facts and identify the game designers I think are personally at fault..

I think 4E isn't for you. Mainly because the older editions have moulded you and your gaming preferences.

4E does break away from older frameworks. Some like it, some not.

For example your issue with the art. You like Erol Otus, due to your past - you've grown up with'em. I personally, think they're very surreal and not fitting. Because I've seen better surreal art.

Do you disagree with me? If yes, do you disagree with me based on objective reasons or because it's a matter of taste? I daresay the latter.

And it's the same way with the rest of the game - it's a matter of taste. Stick to the older editions, they're not invalidated by the new edition!

Cheers, LT.

 

[ZombieButch]

I hate books that give lots of social or racial backgrouns, because then the writeups reflect that, and maybe I don't want the Orcs in my world to behave that way, and have that background.

I love 4th for giving that stuff back to the GM.

Right on, brother.

Plus, leaving that stuff out makes room for more monsters... always a good thing in my book!

 

[WhatGravitas]

Iron heroes went further on magical items. That was one of it's good points. Mr Mearls, are you listening? With a not-compatible new edition there was no need to build in bonus bracket creep. None.

By the way, the magic items had to say because the "+X weapon" is an iconic D&D entity. However, AFAIK, they've spelled out the math pretty much - you're expected to have an enhancement bonus of about Level/5, rounded up, as well as the +1d6 damage on crits per plus. If you include that, you no longer have a real need for magic items.

Cheers, LT.

 

[AllisterH]

re: Tarrasque

Er, without the earthbinding ability, didn't everyone simply take to the air and launch spells on the tarrasque?

Even with its immunities and resistances, I always thought the Tarrasque was literally easy even in 1E/2E.

Seriously, given the range of spells/ranged combat, why would you fight the tarrasque at melee range?

 

[WayneLigon]

Why? Maybe because WoTC doesn't want to see D&D go the way of comics: an industry dominated by an aging entrenched fanbase who want to relive the same period of their lives over and over again. They don't want the tail to wag the dog.

Well, at some point, things have to change. They may not change in the way you like, but looking backwards is never the way to go. You may like the old MM and such, but the rest of the world has left you behind.

You're new here, so you might want to consider getting a Community Supporter account just so you can use the Search feature - you'll see that every single point you've made has been brought up over and over again since 4E was announced. And even before, with regards to 3E.

 

[Doug McCrae]

4e has some fluff text for monsters, probably more than 1e, 3e or BD&D. Less than 2e. But there's tons of fluff out there from previous editions if you want it - splatbooks, 6 page articles on the ecology of the flind in Dragon magazine. All crap, of course. D&D's never ever had good fluff. Look at games like RuneQuest or Empire of the Petal Throne if that's your bag.

4e provides the best monster crunch so far. The framework is d20 but with a tighter CR system than 3e and more interesting, better presented special powers. This is what D&D does best - crunch.

As other posters have said, fluff is very subjective, so it's better left to individual DMs. Look out those Dragon magazine articles if you really want to know what tiraphegs eat and when quaggoths celebrate their holy festivals.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Stacking bonuses for mechanical benefit not mystery or mystique. Yech. Hate-mundane-magic. Make it dangerous. Make it un-knowable.

Unfeasible when there's a wizard in the party. His whole job description entails knowing magic. The spells he casts aren't mysterious, until 4e some of them didn't even require a roll, they worked every single time. Why would the wizard not understand something he himself can create?

Some magic items are unknowable. High end stuff like artefacts. Not +1 swords.

 

[Treebore]

Other than the art I can pretty much agree with you at least a little on each point.

What I am waiting to hear about, especially at around 13th+ level, is if the game is really easier to GM. I quit 3.X because of DM burnout at the higher levels. So far 4E has convinced me it has increased the workload for the GM.

I too used to take inspiration from the MM write ups and noticed on the write ups posted so far how empty they were on such things.

I feel sorry for new DM's trying to figure out how to fit monsters into their game settings. I found those write ups very helpful for doing so in the "old days". It just makes 4E appear much more slanted towards miniatures since those write ups look to be far more concerned with table top tactics rather than how to fit those monsters into settings with their own unique history.

Anyways, I think when all the shiny newness wears off I am going to hear some significant problems with how 4E plays, and how it hasn't become easier to DM. Plus 4E has planned yearly rules bloat, just like 3E. So I doubt 4E is going to be a real improvement over 3E in the short term, or the long term.

I also agree that I see a lot of video game elements in 4E as well. I don't consider that a bad thing, because a good idea is a good idea.

3E reinforced a gaming philosophy I developed years ago. Simple is best. Simple allows for simple quick play, so you get more done in the little time you have to game. Simple allows a DM with a job, spouse, kids, a house and yard to maintain, to use what little spare time they have to effectively and thoroughly prep for a game during their all too little free time. Not to mention, since simple also means much less need to consult the rules manuals, you can also do a lot of prep in your head, if not all of it, while doing chores and work.

No, 3E did not reinforce this by being easy to DM, it did so by being overly complex. By burning me out as a DM. 4E not only looks like too much complexity is still there, it looks like it has more.

So I am giving 4E another year, probably two, before I consider buying into it and playing it. Right now it looks like I'll just steal the good ideas 4E has, and stick with my simple gaming.

 

[Buttercup]

Hey, think about it - you've ordered the books despite expecting you wouldn't like it?!

Well not exactly. My husband d20dwarf ordered them.

 

[Maggan]

Why would you populate a world with monsters that have no meaning?
Where's the complex socio/anthro hooks. The social reasons for great evil (or good)or great dispair (or hatred). That's what makes villans rock. Pathos.

Did you get this from the AD&D 1st ed MM? I can't really remember at the moment, but "socio/anthro" hooks are not the first thing that comes to mind concerning the monsters in the original MM either. Nor any greater meaning to their existence.

/M