D&D 4E What don't you like about 4E so far? (Not a rant)

[Aeolius]

The D&DI: The character creation app and VTT look like clunky 20-year old video games, not to mention they won't work on my Mac.

No conversion of existing campaigns: I like my new game, thankyouverymuch.

Loss of GH as Core: I don't care for FR or Eberron.

Loss of monsters as PCs: I rarely run campaigns where core races are allowed. I'd like to see every sentient race in the MM get the Savage Species treatment.

Planar Changes: I have a summer home in Hades, please leave that alone. Also, we need both succubi AND erinyes - do as I did and add female daemons and demodands as well, while your at it.

Leaving Beasties out of the MM: With my luck, all of the aquatic creatures and hags will be omitted from the MM.

Bards: One of my personal favorites.

 

[Cadfan]

I am generally enthusiastic about 4th edition. While I haven't seen it yet, the designers seem aware of the problems in the rules, and enthusiastic about fixing them.

My reservations are,

1) Not so sure about action points. Action points I've seen in the past have been mechanically clunky. I could be convinced once I actually see them, however, since we've been told that 4e action points will be newly designed. Maybe they won't be clunky.
2) Losing the ability to put points into Profession: Yodeler. I never did, but I always liked having the option. Maybe a siloing system that divides adventuring skills from non adventuring skills might be nice? I don't know how it ought to work, and I know players would spend forever trying to figure out how to break it. But I like the non adventuring skills even if I never feel like they're worth lowering my Spot check to pay for them.

I am neutral on-

1) Changes to certain old busted mined out settings. Maybe they will make the setting cool again. But maybe they should have just issued a compendium book, and nailed that open coffin shut.
2) Tieflings in core. I don't object to them there, and I'm glad they're being changed from "mommy slept with a demon" to an entire culture that made a pact with demons, forever changing their bloodline. I assume this was done based on the relative popularity of tieflings versus gnomes, so I'm happy for people who will have fun with tieflings now. I'm just ambivalent about them myself.
3) Loss of the druid in the core rules. Honestly, it doesn't fit there. Its too redundant with other classes. And the 3e druid was a cobbled together frankenstein monster of legacy spells and a broken shapeshifting mechanic. So if the druid comes out in another book, except GOOD this time, I'll be happy. But I like druids (the archetype, not the 3e rules), so I'll miss them in the meantime.

 

[Gallo22]

I don't know where to start... I'll keep an open mind and wait to see the book when they come out, but for me personally, I don't really care for most of the changes I've seen so far and there is just too many to list, especially the Iconic changes that others have already listed...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I dont actively dislike anything so far, but I am skeptical about a couple points that dont sound like they are going to work out. However, without full details, I cant really say.

AE crits - The dragon swoops in, rolls a 20, and your party is toast. Maybe AE spells do considerably less damage in 4e or something, but it smells like TPK potential.

Increased importance of race - I'm worried that with additional racial abilities and talents that there will be a default "wizard race", "fighter race" etc, and if you arent an elf wizard, dwarf fighter, halfling rogue etc you're just weak. At the end of the day, a half orc wizard in 3e isnt THAAAAAT much worse than an elf wizard. But if in 4e the elf gets a bunch of magic oriented talents and the orc doesnt, then the divide grows. You're penalized more for not playing a racial stereotype. This worries me... I'd like to see race chosen more for flavor and style instead of mechanics.

 

[Wormwood]

1. The wait.

2. No swordmage in the first PHB (although a functional 'gish' option via multi-classing would alleviate this).

3. Half-elves

4. Backing down on advancing the Eberron time line

5. Retention of even a vestige of the Vancian system.

6. Restriction on number of games I can play/month via Virtual Tabletop.

 

[Jackelope King]

The Digital Initiative: From what I've heard so far, it's going to be asking too much for too few useful features (I've never liked Dungeon or Dragon, so I'm not willing to pay a subscription for what sounds like a bare-bones virtual table and character creator I don't need anyway alongside a pair of magazines I've never wanted anyway).

Skills: I love that they're being consolidated, but I honestly am not sold on SE-style skills yet. I like that all characters can participate in challenges (if only the experts get to shine), but I also like skill points, and never had a problem with them. Broad skills which allowed you to use them creatively (if non-proficiently and at lower-level) to achieve other tasks would probably be better (for example: a druid without real stealth training using Survival (forest) to conceal himself better than a city-slicker fighter in the woods, but not as well as the sneaky rogue or the ranger who just disappeared into the foliage).

Magic Item Pricing: Nothing specific here yet, but I fear magic item creation going away if guidelines become too vague. While I am definitely happy that the Christmas Tree effect is dying (good riddance!), I'd miss magic item creation if it became the sole domain of NPCs.

Monsters as Different: I'm torn here. On one hand, I like unifed rulesets. On the other, I appreciate that sometimes, different rules just work better for PCs than NPCs. I think ideally, I'd like to see monsters stay close to PCs overall, I'll give the designers the benefit of the doubt here until I get to read it.

 

[Cbas_10]

Little things don't bug me and can be worked around. Druids, warlocks, cosmology, tieflings, and such are really not a BIG deal. A few things, however, are a big deal to me. Many things have already been mentioned here, but this is, of course, my list.

--The lack of emphasis that this is a Role-playing game. Computer RPGs are not really role playing games; they are electronic substitutes that end up as Adventure Games. Computer RPGs are not BAD - I love playing my Neverwinter Nights, Elder Scrolls, and such. However, it is absolutely clear that there is an amount of borrowing from Computer RPGs (and possibly even MMORPGS) for this tabletop game. Even social interactions are said to be somehow "statted out as encounters"....Huh? It is possible that this particular dislike is totally unfounded and that there is truly a place for great role-playing of enriched characters in 4E. If so, Why are they not talking about it....since D&D is a ROLE-playing game?

--Labels, roles (this better not be what they mean when they still call D&D a role-playing game) for critters and players, and a theme of every idea having its planned-out spot for how it works within the game. Leaders come in many forms, as do sneaky types, brutes/tanks, controllers (wtf?), and any other archetype we can think of. I want the ability to take an Orc and its stats...and apply it to my game how I want to: there will be a tyrant of a leader, an elder shaman/priest/mystic type, scouts, troops, and then there will be many unique orcs. One will be the head of the scouts, perfectly represented as having a few levels of Scout and Rogue. One will be the head of a group that fits with my "Alliance with clerics of Hextor" storyline: a Marshall/Blackguard who seeks to overthrow the current orc leader. I know I can use any set of stats for the latter example and run a story like I want....but have I lost the Freedom to make such intricate characters if I wanted to? The ability to customize and write up monsters as detailed as I could with PCs was THE big selling point that hooked me into 3E. Generic monsters are .... boring. Using multiple pages to write up brute, controller, and whatever other variants - instead of simply giving Orc stats and a page of flavorful discussion regarding common classes, organizations, and ideas - well...that's simply boring and a waste of page count.

--Points of Light. The idea on its own is actually a good idea. I can understand a little bit of why they are doing it. However, as a player who has X-amount of time for crafting my game (creating monsters & NPCs is a small fraction of the effort, compared to creating the stories, maps, NPC personalities, and locations), I really like having a specific setting sourcebook. It gives me a foundation with which to base my many NPCs and plot ideas from. Sure, I can create a bunch of NPCs from nothing...and generate plot seeds from those NPCs. However, I like having that setting sourcebook so that the NPCs (and PCs) seem connected to something....so that everything seems more organic. The BEST example of what I want (and what I may use in the future) is the old Kingdoms of Kalamar. It was the first hardcover book Kenzer did for 3E (adapted from one of their old boxed sets). The book had no game stats, NPC classes, or anything that directly tied it to being used for D&D. It was simply a setting with rich histories and interesting personalities. I'd imagine there would have to be a comprimise and include a few crunchy bits for 4E....but you get my point.

--The killing off of Dungeon and Dragon magazines for the sake of fueling the DDI. I will go on record and risk my reputation (ok, that means a lot more in my group and at my game store ) by saying that Hasbro/WotC has vastly over-estimated how many gamers will use the DDI and conduct games over the internet. Too many eggs have been put into this basket, and they are assuming that every D&D gamer will want to incorporate the electronic content in thier games to one degree or another. I loved downloading maps from the Map-a-week section, and I used to like the web enhancements when they were truly extra bits of content that could not fit into the book. On rare occasion, I found a worthwhile article to read. However, whether it is trying to mess with the digital desktop or read a pdf rulebook....I really don't like mixing a computer with game sessions. No, I'm not some old bastard that hates technology. During my games, I am up and about...walking and talking and expressing my points (in-character stuff and grand descriptions)...during combat descriptions, i quickly jot notes on any scrap of paper while i describe the events as the dice roll out. I am NOT about to slow myself down and change the actual way I play...for some digital initiative. I know we all have a choice whether to use it or not, but what I am really disappointed with is the fact that Piazo and the fans were not given that choice regarding magazines that were still pretty successful. Heck...I'd happily use it and pay the subscription fee if the people at Piazo were still running things. Those guys and gals knew gaming!

I hope I am wrong about some or all of these points. I like D&D, am not stuck on 3E just because it is 3E, and I would happily buy more books. Potentially new players and more reading material is all good to me. However, 4E has a few too many MAJOR strikes against them so far.

 

[Cadfan]

6. Restriction on number of games I can play/month via Virtual Tabletop.

I remember them saying that you'd be able to play 3 times per month, but I also remember a different spokesperson saying that was crazy. I'm sorry I can't link the quotes for you. Maybe someone else can.

 

[humble minion]

Oh hell yes, don't know how I forgot that. The whole online business and the 'digital miniatures' (especially if the hints about making them bloody COLLECTABLE are even a thousandth bit true) and how the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon were killed to tie in with the whole project - I don't know if these count as 'parts of 4e' to dislike for the purposes of this thread, but I really really hate what WotC have done there...

 

[Doug McCrae]

3) The funny, overly compound monster names. Things like bonecrusher zombie, hellsword cambion.

I really like those.