Okay people, a little wake up call.

[Evenglare]

I can run the same campaign, with the same characters, and have the same outcome (generally speaking) in 1e, in 2e in 3e and in 4e. I can have all my NPCs. I can have my gnomes running around, i can have all the events in any campaign in any edition, just because the rules are different doesnt mean anything. For god sakes people, its a game of imagination, OMG OMG OMG ITS ALL COMBAT. Im glad they gave robust rules for combat. Hell they even gave us rules for non combat encounters. Skill challenges anyone?

Oh no they dont have this spell or this one or this in there. MAKE IT UP !!!!! STOP RELYING ON EVERYTHING TO BE SPELLED OUT FOR YOU. Geeze.

I promise all of you will will be okay with 4th edition.

 

[Mercurius]

Funny. I've had the same thoughts.

 

[VBMEW-01]

Amen!

Preach on!

For me, I rarely run more than 50 % from the book anyway. My group has always been more into the story anyway. What I like is that DMing should be faster now, making my off the cuff, new things all the time, approach work even better than ever.

 

[Hussar]

I can run the same campaign, with the same characters, and have the same outcome (generally speaking) in 1e, in 2e in 3e and in 4e. I can have all my NPCs. I can have my gnomes running around, i can have all the events in any campaign in any edition, just because the rules are different doesnt mean anything. For god sakes people, its a game of imagination, OMG OMG OMG ITS ALL COMBAT. Im glad they gave robust rules for combat. Hell they even gave us rules for non combat encounters. Skill challenges anyone?

Oh no they dont have this spell or this one or this in there. MAKE IT UP !!!!! STOP RELYING ON EVERYTHING TO BE SPELLED OUT FOR YOU. Geeze.

I promise all of you will will be okay with 4th edition.

Y'know, while this sounds great and all, and, to some degree I do agree, there is something to be said for "system does matter". Different systems reward and punish different behaviour differently. Because of that, different systems will play somewhat differently than others.

Now, since the reward system for D&D has always been "kill things and take their stuff", I suspect you are fairly right in saying that the differences at the table between the editions aren't all that large.

 

[Rechan]

Quick question.

What'd the 2e PHB have that wasn't combat-focused? I mean, hell, they were called Non-Weapon proficiencies.

 

[Metus]

I want everything spelled out for me.

I was excited about 4th edition - I wasn't one of the naysayers - but after having gotten it and checking it all out, there's only one conclusion I can make:

4th edition is a huge disappointment.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, that is one viewpoint.

And I overall agree, except for the making up part. I already see people onthese boards designing characters and such.

And that may work well in some play situations, in some cohesive groups.

But in a situation where membership is more fluid, having a solid rules base you can play with counts a lot. In that case, you would worry more about what was or was not in the books........

BTW, in case it is not obvious, I play in almost house-rules-free envirnoments. Sure tweaks nad banning of some stuff rules, but not wholesale additions to the game.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I want everything spelled out for me.

I was excited about 4th edition - I wasn't one of the naysayers - but after having gotten it and checking it all out, there's only one conclusion I can make:

4th edition is a huge disappointment.

Just a one word question, why?

What made you change your mind?

 

[Metus]

Just a one word question, why?

What made you change your mind?

I was kind of apathetic towards 4th edition when I first heard about it. I really didn't mind one way or the other that there was a new edition coming out. However, after reading the previews and the excerpts, in addition to all the people raving about how great a play 4th edition was when they tested it out, I really started getting stoked.

One of the players in my 3.5 group was wary from the start. He thought they were dumbing D&D down - I disagreed with him.

Turns out I was wrong.

After getting the books and reading through them, I was left stunned at how simplistic and rudimentary 4th edition seems to me. It was like getting punched in the face. I commented to my aforementioned 3.5 group that it feels like 4th edition has no depth whatsoever - it's purely about the flash, and about ease of use.

Ease of use isn't bad, obviously, but it seems to me like they've taken it to the extreme; cutting off some of the fat is fine (such as the skill system, which I do like more in 4th edition), but 4th edition is downright emaciated. Instead of the rich variety of magical spells that 3rd edition had when it came out, we get magic missile every round. I still can't believe that wizards cannot memorize the same spell twice, and that they can get to cast a spell maybe once a day. Fireball once a day? I'm surprised I haven't read anyone talking bad about this.

The entire system underwhelmed me, from the generally uninspired feats, to the generic and repetitive powers that all classes get, to the disenchanting of magical items for essences - whoops, I mean residuum (at which my group snickered at).

People have referred to how 4th edition seems to take a lot from MMORPGs. I think that's a given, but more than that, it seems like 4th edition is more like a CRPG in general. I'm reminded of Neverwinter Nights, the CRPG, and how every spell and feat and ability revolved around combat, and more specifically doing damage. I always hated that, but I understood it was in part due to the limitations of having a computer as a DM. 4th edition doesn't have that excuse.

4th edition feels like a beginner's guide to 3rd edition, as if they had released a small introductory packet helping people understand D&D. That's what 4th edition feels like to me.

 

[Sashi]

After getting the books and reading through them, I was left stunned at how simplistic and rudimentary 4th edition seems to me. It was like getting punched in the face. I commented to my aforementioned 3.5 group that it feels like 4th edition has no depth whatsoever - it's purely about the flash, and about ease of use.

It's been commented that the complexity in 4E comes from team tactics, instead of individual character builds. Personally, I'm happy with this. I no longer have to put up with my gaming group's Grognard yelling at my girlfriend for choosing Self Sufficient over Power Attack.

Instead of the rich variety of magical spells that 3rd edition had when it came out,

You mean the list of "1001 things spellcasters can do that nobody else can"? This had to go. Especially the hundreds of spells made in the time-honored "Make up a spell, guess the level it should be, and hope it isn't game breaking" method that brought us such memorable snafu's as polymorph.

Fireball once a day? I'm surprised I haven't read anyone talking bad about this.

Because the Wizard can do Fireball, plus another, different Daily (It seems strange to me that you're complaining about the lack of options the Wizard has and then complaining that he can't just repeat the same one over and over) he also has 2 Encounter powers, which are limited in casting time only to the number of times he can stop for 5 minutes and catch his breath.

You're actually upset that non-wizards are horning in on the "I get to kill stuff with my cool ability" market, aren't you?

4th edition feels like a beginner's guide to 3rd edition, as if they had released a small introductory packet helping people understand D&D. That's what 4th edition feels like to me.

4E definitely reduced the complexity of the game, this is true. But for me it's like how Tangrams are less complex than a Jigsaw puzzle. For you, it appears that the reduction is more akin to how Tic Tac Toe is is less complex than Chess.
I'm not going to disagree with you that the game is now simpler, but I'm going to disagree that the game being simpler is calamitous and/or wrong.