pawsplay's dealbreaker list

[BryonD]

The funny thing is the minion concept is the first time D&D has EVER modelled satisfactorily the classic LotR scene where Aragorn takes on a horde...

You can't get more Tolkein than that and yet D&D has always previously had a problem modelling this...

Didn't AD&D have a rule that fighters got 1 attack PER LEVEL when fighting zero levels?
I clearly recall it, but it may have been an option tucked back in the DMG somewhere.

FWIW, I haven't tried to run massive hordes of mooks as a regular thing, but I can think of at least three events that it happened in 3E in my game and the model worked really well for me.....

 

[Dausuul]

Half the things you list as negatives are, to me, positives:

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

I consider 1 hp minions to be a brilliant innovation. Now I can actually pit the party against twenty zombies without having to track hit points for every single freakin' zombie.

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.

Neutral on this. Two-weapon fighting is a difficult thing. It makes sense to me that you can't do it effectively unless you're trained.

The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e.

Okay, I agree, this is annoying. I don't give a crap about metallic dragons, but dang it, I want my frost giants!

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?

I am one hundred percent down with wizards as infinite energy machines. I have hated Vancian casting since the days of BECMI. "I can't cast any more fireballs today. Why not? Uh, I forgot how to do it. I have to go read my spellbook again to remind me."

Ugh. 3E at least came up with slightly better fluff--"preparing" instead of "memorizing"--but it was still lame.

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.

Gnome anything is a waste of space as far as I'm concerned. Although I might change my opinion depending on how the new gnomes turn out.

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.

Eh, whatever. I don't consider this a benefit, but I also don't consider it a problem.

Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.

Mildly annoying, true. A lot will depend on whether they can use this ability to go through walls.

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

It's a stylistic choice, and even though it doesn't mesh with my literary tastes, I'm starting to think it's a better choice for an RPG. In my experience, games involving casters past 6th level or so inevitably develop a high ZOWIE factor anyhow, except that all the ZOWIE is under the control of one or two characters. At least 4E spreads it around a bit.

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

This does sadden me a bit. But it's not the end of the world.

 

[AllisterH]

Didn't AD&D have a rule that fighters got 1 attack PER LEVEL when fighting zero levels?
I clearly recall it, but it may have been an option tucked back in the DMG somewhere.

FWIW, I haven't tried to run massive hordes of mooks as a regular thing, but I can think of at least three events that it happened in 3E in my game and the model worked really well for me.....

Yep..There was such a rule in the 1E PHB, but I don't think it transitioned to the 2E PHB.

The problem with using 0-level critters is that they couldn't actually pose a threat to the character.....Minions are meant to be mowed down like wheat but at the same time, there has to be "the appearance of danger" to the hero in question. For example, we knew the Bride was about to decimate the crazy 88s, but she at least still appeared to work for it...she just made it look easy

The mooks in question should also at least require the hero to expend some effort just to show how much of a buttkicker they are...

Which is why I love the 4E minion concept..

 

[Shazman]

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?

Those are some good ones.
How about:
1) Holding core classes and races for ransom. You shouldn't have to wait and pay extra to play a half-orc barbarian or a gnome druid.
2) Everyone gets spells (powers) that are perfectly balanced so no one's feelings get hurt. Why even have classes at this point?
3) No real multi-classing.
4) Overemphasis on combat roles, and less emphasis on customization. I want to play an interesting half-orc paladin, who protects the weak, not divine defender 1 who aggros the monsters away from the wizard.
5) First level characters are superheroes that can fight small armies from the beginning. Sorry, you should have to earn this kind of power, not have it served to you on a silver platter.
6) Rules are different for PC's and villians/monsters. What's wrong with some versimilitude?
7) Blowing up the Forgotten Realms and being unapologetic and condescending about it when fans complained.
8) Horrid, insulting marketing that focused on tearing down third edition instead of focusing on 4E's own merits. We don't need to hear for the hundredth time that you are going to save us from the horrible game you gave us.
9) Flavor changes that only exist for the sake of change. Why fix something that isn't broken?
10) Zero effort at compatablility with earlier editions.

I could go on, but these are the top ones.

 

[AllisterH]

6) Rules are different for PC's and villians/monsters. What's wrong with some versimilitude?
.

I'll let others dissect the other points but this is the one I would like to focus on. 3E is the only edition that has had PCs built along the same lines as the NPCS and at first, I thought "this is great..makes sense since it makes for a more believable world".

The problem with this is that this is a game and it is not fair to the DM (who supposed to enjoy the game as well) to have to build/run these characters...

Even something as simple as the concept of minions and solos are great examples of WOTC realizing the needs of the DM are distinct from the needs of the players.

I applaud WOTC for realizing this

 

[Wormwood]

I could go on, but these are the top ones.

With all due respect, your list could be restated as: 4e shouldn't be different than 3e.

Which is a valid complaint, of course. Just not one shared by anyone who had problems with 3e.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

A world of medieval chaos, warfare, and poverty...

This post says a lot more about your dislikes than the original, paws. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Goobermunch]

This is patently untrue. Paizo's Game Mastery modules were being released, as were Goodman Games's Dungeon Crawl Classics. Ptolus from Malhavoc Press was still going strong. Necromancer Games released City of Brass, and White Wolf had put out Monte Cook's 3.5 World of Darkness. Kenzer Co. still, I believe, had some 3.5 Kingdoms of Kalamar books, and were certainly still selling them. You mentioned Green Ronin already. Mongoose was still releasing 3.5-based books, particularly under their Flaming Cobra imprint, and Paradigm Concepts was also putting out new Arcanis products. And that's just off the top of my head.

And, by the way, judging the Open Gaming movement by the success of 3.5 OGL material is completely fallacious. The fact that the Open Gaming movement grew beyond 3.5 and allowed whole new games that deviated from the base 3.5 system - such as True20, M&M, RuneQuest, etc. - is the biggest indicator there is of the Open Gaming movement's success.

So then you're saying that there's no problem with WotC's departure from the OGL market, right?

Because if the OG movement has been successful, then there's no problem with WotC moving to the GSL, since WotC is no longer necessary to drive that market. Since the GSL permits companies to produce products under both the GSL and the OGL (but not the same product under both), it's a net win for everyone. WotC has created an entirely new market and source for games, by creating the OGL and helping it flourish during the 3.5 era. Now that the market is established, it is further helping the market by withdrawing from it, so those products won't be overshadowed by its new release.

Right, that's what everyone's been saying? Because if the OG movement is as successful as you claim, then no one should care if WotC has decided to move away from it. In fact, we should all be singing their praises for creating it and setting it free. But the fact is that the overwhelming response to the GSL has been "OMG!! WotC is killing OGL." Even after WotC clarified that the restrictions of the GSL were product line by product line, rather than company by company, people still are outraged that WotC is moving to another license.

That tells me one of two things is going on. First, the OGL is not at all successful. Second, it's moderately successful, but its participants want to be able to take advantage of WotC's most recent work.


--G

 

[Vael]

Those are some good ones.
How about:
1) Holding core classes and races for ransom. You shouldn't have to wait and pay extra to play a half-orc barbarian or a gnome druid.

I'll admit to being disappointed that my favourite 3.5 classes (the Druid and Sorcerer) aren't in the first PHB, but I hardly consider it "holding them ransom". Look, if I really want to play one immediately, I'll homebrew. Meanwhile, I get to try the Warlord, the Dragonborn and I don't have to wait even longer for a game that I'm eager to try.

2) Everyone gets spells (powers) that are perfectly balanced so no one's feelings get hurt. Why even have classes at this point?

Until Tome of Battle came out, I never wanted to play a melee class, because they bored me and felt like a waste when compared to what high level casters can pull off. Improving balance should be a good thing, and powers make all classes more interesting to play in combat.

3) No real multi-classing.

Real? What does that mean? I'll admit, the two-classes only rule seems overly restrictive, but 4e's feat-driven system seems to offer flexibility in the amount you want to immerse yourself in your second class and makes a multiclassed character viable in combat.

4) Overemphasis on combat roles, and less emphasis on customization. I want to play an interesting half-orc paladin, who protects the weak, not divine defender 1 who aggros the monsters away from the wizard.

I don't see these as mutually exclusive. A 3.5 Half-Orc paladin wasn't interesting, it was gimped by horrible stat adjustments so it could barely protect itself, let alone the weak. And between feat and power selection, I find it hard to believe that 4e PCs are less customizable than their 3.5 brethern.

5) First level characters are superheroes that can fight small armies from the beginning. Sorry, you should have to earn this kind of power, not have it served to you on a silver platter.

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to playing a wizard that isn't going to run in fear from a common housecat.

6) Rules are different for PC's and villians/monsters. What's wrong with some versimilitude?

I do not understand this. Is this like truthiness?

8) Horrid, insulting marketing that focused on tearing down third edition instead of focusing on 4E's own merits. We don't need to hear for the hundredth time that you are going to save us from the horrible game you gave us.

Where you see "3.5 sucks", I see "this is how 4e is better".

9) Flavor changes that only exist for the sake of change. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Most of the flavour changes I've seen seem very well reasoned, hardly capricious. That implies that maybe it was broken, or at least improveable.

10) Zero effort at compatablility with earlier editions.

Meh. Attempts at compatability were doomed to fail, unless what you really wanted was 3.75. And I see no point in playing 3.75.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

That tells me one of two things is going on. First, the OGL is not at all successful. Second, it's moderately successful, but its participants want to be able to take advantage of WotC's most recent work.

I think we're more likely dealing with your second conclusion rather than the first. I think the OGL has been successful, but it would be a helluva lot more successful if it were based on the most recent iteration of DnD.