pawsplay's dealbreaker list

[pawsplay]

While I like the idea of streamlining, and I enjoy Star Wars Saga pretty well, I think today I am a confirmed non-switcher. 1 hp orcs are just the final straw. However, there are plenty of other things that make me say, "What do I get in return for tolerating this?" The short list:

*1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.
*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.
*The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...
*Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?
*No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.
*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.
*Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.
*Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.
*The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?

 

[Nikosandros]

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.

In 1st edition AD&D you can attack with two weapons, provided that the secondary weapon is a dagger or a hand axe. I'm curious, what are you referring to?

 

[dystmesis]

Thank you for telling us this. We were all waiting with bated breaths for pawsplay's opinion to hit the forums! Now that we know your feelings, we can finally go on with our lives.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Thank you for telling us this. We were all waiting with bated breaths for pawsplay's opinion to hit the forums! Now that we know your feelings, we can finally go on with our lives.

Lose the snark please.

If PawsPlay wants to post the reasons why he doesn't want to go to 4e, then it is reasonable to do so. It is also reasonable for people to chat about those reasons too. It isn't reasonable to poke fun at someone though.

Thanks

 

[Kwalish Kid]

While I like the idea of streamlining, and I enjoy Star Wars Saga pretty well, I think today I am a confirmed non-switcher. 1 hp orcs are just the final straw. However, there are plenty of other things that make me say, "What do I get in return for tolerating this?" The short list:

*1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.

Doesn't having 1 hp measure minionness?

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.

It can't have bothered you that much since there were rules for attacking with two weapons in 1e and there weren't any powers in 1E.

*The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...

Fair enough. (But, as always, I recommend that you investigate alternate forms of artist reward other than copyright and contact your local politicians.)

*Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?

Fair enough.

*No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.

Fair enough.

*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.

Hunh? So every race has net penalties? This just doesn't make any sense mathematically, let alone conceptually.

*Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.

Fair enough.

*Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.

Fair enough.

*The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?

For money, that's what. The open content movement is dying all over the place. Radiohead used it as a gimmick and they still relied on traditional album sales to make their money and they have already indicated that they will be using standard release methods for future albums. Without some kind of robust system in place to reward artistic creativity, it is up to the use of copyright, and every method that provides, to generate income for these activities. To do otherwise is to end the entire enterprise of professionally designed games.

 

[Festivus]

The thing is, I don't want is something overly complex. Getting some of my friends who don't play D&D currently is what I want. All those other systems are too much for them to want to grasp, at least at this time. If that means a slimmed down system, I can live with it. If you have a group of friends and are playing happily in 3.5, I think you are right, you should keep on playing what you love. There is so much 3.5 content out there you could probably live two lifetimes before you finished it all.

I am still awaiting the books before I decide if I really do like the system or not, but I am really leaning towards my next campaign being a 4E campaign... I have about two years to decide, that's when we should be wrapping my my current 3.5 campaign.

 

[GnomeWorks]

*1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.

But if they were going to be given so few hit points as to only need one hit to take out anyway, then what's wrong with the idea?

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.

It's no different than requiring a feat. In 3e, if you tried using two weapons without TWF, you were basically throwing your attacks away. 4e is all about the removal of suboptimal choices, so they took out the ability to use two weapons if you didn't have TWF (or its 4e equivalent).

*The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...

Times change, different monsters become popular.

And isn't it easy enough to reflavor monsters to other flavors, anyway? Like the frost giant thing - just take another giant and replace "[energy type"] with "cold". Bam, frost giant.

*Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?

It's not that pulling out the crossbow is the problem, it's the resource-management game. It's the idea that a low-level wizard can toss one, maybe two spells a day, which is dull and not really evocative of fantasy fiction. While being able to throw spells all the time may be a bit much, it is a step in the right direction.

*No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.

Illusions are absurdly difficult to adjudicate, and usually wind up causing no end of problems.

Gnomes didn't have a niche. They were sorta-halfling sorta-dwarf sorta-elf, all balled into one weird conglomerate. Attempting to carve out a niche for the gnome would require messing with at least one of these races' shticks.

*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.

I'd think that this works out mechanically different, though. I imagine it has a very different impact upon "the math," and since 4e is much more focused on "the math," turning everything into bonuses or lack of bonuses may have been easier to deal with than bonuses and penalties.

*Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.

It's once every five minutes, it's 30 feet, and they have to travel through a coterminuous plane to do so.

*Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.

But it beats "I stand there and full-attack it." You have to admit, having more options is rather neat, and gives somebody other than the wizard and cleric some fun things to do and consider. It makes the game a bit more tactical.

*The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?

To prevent a bunch of products of the like that we saw in the 3.0 glut. By keeping a bit of a tighter control on what's going on, WotC can at least help out to ensure that the market isn't flooded by a ton of crap.

</devil's advocate>

 

[baberg]

Sorry you won't be converting. Have fun with Paizo's game, or 3.x, or whatever game you enjoy.

 

[Piratecat]

Sorry you won't be converting. Have fun with Paizo's game, or 3.x, or whatever game you enjoy.

Yup. Both are great. It seems a little premature to me to declare that you hate a game before you actually play it, so if you do end up playing in someone's game you should check in. But there's nothing wrong with liking and playing older editions.

Personally, I can't dislike a game for what it doesn't have yet. I'm all for people liking or disliking a game for what it does have, though.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Personally, I can't dislike a game for what it doesn't have yet. I'm all for people liking or disliking a game for what it does have, though.

Two things in the OP were things that are not yet included in 4e, but may be in the future: gnome illusionists and some monsters that might be left out of MM1. The open-gaming thing is a bit muddier, granted; we'll have to wait and see on that one.

The rest are pretty clearly, IMO, part of 4e as we know it, and so they would seem to form a pretty solid basis for a dislike of the system.