D&D 4E What don't you like about 4E so far? (Not a rant)
- Thread starter Alzrius
- Start date
GreatLemur
Explorer
I like the looks of 4e, but I am prone to endlessly bitch about even my favorite games.
- I'm disappointed they don't seem to be trimming down the class list in favor of more generic classes. The talent tree direction seems cool, but they could've used it to eliminate things like Paladins and Rangers. (Seriously, True20 has the right idea.)
- Also, it looks like the Cleric will once again be a healer regardless of his deity's portfolio, which is lame. I miss 2e's specialty priests.
- The fact that armor still seems to provide damage avoidance rather than damage mitigation is extremely disappointing. I really didn't want to see AC still in the game.
- The Wizard traditions worry me a little bit. I'm not sure they'll actually be a problem, but my kneejerk "Keep your setting fluff out of my character mechanics" reaction is primed.
- Also a little worried about the skill system, but I don't really know enough to complain, right now.
- Some of the mechanical changes suggest that they're continuing down a strongly gamist route to the detriment of simulationism. I know their primary goal is to make everything fun as much fun as possible, but things like a Cleric's critical hits triggering healing effects on allies are illogical enough to make things less fun for me.
- The idea of making people pay for freaking virtual miniatures when they're also paying a monthly fee to even be able to use the things is absurd beyond my tolerance.
- Warlord is a dumb name for a base class. I wonder if Mearls named it. Last time that dude made up a leader/tactician class, he called it the Hunter. WTF.
JamesM
First Post
That he does and I think it highlights one of the biggest divides in the community of D&D fans: the low-level experience and to what extent that experience encapsulates the D&D experience.wedgeski said:
From what I can tell, players seem to fall into one of two camps (with fuzziness around the edges): those who think low-level PCs' lives should be nasty, brutish, and short and those who think low-level PCs should be born heroes, albeit not fully-grown heroes. Through 1E and 2E, the first camp held largely unchallenged sway. 3E tipped the balance toward the second camp, but still not enough that most people in the first camp were overly bothered (they mostly complained about high-level power creep). 4E, from what we've seen, seems to fall squarely into the second camp and I contend that it's this factor, more than fluff issues, that really divides the community.
darkseraphim
Explorer
My primary problem is the obvious money-grab, compounded by the thinly-veiled attempt to encroach on World of Warcraft's dominant subcription audience. The third thing is the fact that in doing so, they're moving away from what D&D is, and waving away the game's time-honored traditions. I believe this to be unwise in a 33-year-old game.
I have my D&D, and I have WoW; but they're different games that do different things. 4E sits somewhere in the middle and can't really see myself having a need for it.
I have my D&D, and I have WoW; but they're different games that do different things. 4E sits somewhere in the middle and can't really see myself having a need for it.
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Jackelope King said:
This is really my one "Ehh!" thing so far.
My main dislike so far is that the three main books (PHBI, MMI, and DMGI) all seem to be purposefully incomplete so that we have to pick up the latter "core" books.
I really like the power source/role idea for classes, but it sounds like they are only going to have 8 classes in the PHBI... that's 4 short by my math (5 if they double up the Ranger and Rogue as martial strikers). I think its poor design to create an interplay between power sources and roles and then not explore each possibility in the first book.
In truth I don't mind the MMI not having all the iconic D&D monsters... especially any with psionic abilities (Mind Flayer I'm looking at you)... but I hope they include all the traditional fantasy creatures and keep the stranger ones (like the Digester, Rast, Tojanida, etc...) for later (if ever).
As for the DMGI... I'll withhold judgement until they release more details about it.
I really like the power source/role idea for classes, but it sounds like they are only going to have 8 classes in the PHBI... that's 4 short by my math (5 if they double up the Ranger and Rogue as martial strikers). I think its poor design to create an interplay between power sources and roles and then not explore each possibility in the first book.
In truth I don't mind the MMI not having all the iconic D&D monsters... especially any with psionic abilities (Mind Flayer I'm looking at you)... but I hope they include all the traditional fantasy creatures and keep the stranger ones (like the Digester, Rast, Tojanida, etc...) for later (if ever).
As for the DMGI... I'll withhold judgement until they release more details about it.
While, in my experience, the "Christmas Tree Effect" has never been a necessity (Players, however, always love more loot, stuff, and items), I also don't understand the problems with Magic Item Pricing. Except for Epic item Pricing. I understand needing a more advanced feat for the more advanced items, but WTF? Just because a Sword goes from +5 to +6 means an exponential increase in cost to produce??
WyzardWhately
First Post
THe statement that you don't NEED rules for roleplaying is technically true. However, you don't NEED rules for much of anything, if you extend the reasoning. I think the rules should minimally leave room for roleplaying, and ideally support it.
So. You don't need rules FOR roleplaying, but rules in support of roleplaying can be fantastically helpful, and it's odd to my mind to leave them out just because 'you don't need them.' ANy number of games have had great success with rules supporting roleplaying.
Non-exclusive list of examples I think are especially good: UA, WotG, Burning Wheel.
So. You don't need rules FOR roleplaying, but rules in support of roleplaying can be fantastically helpful, and it's odd to my mind to leave them out just because 'you don't need them.' ANy number of games have had great success with rules supporting roleplaying.
Non-exclusive list of examples I think are especially good: UA, WotG, Burning Wheel.
Celebrim
Legend
I'm going to reply before reading the thread, just because I want to see how much I can remember without being influenced by other peoples objections. So this is probably by no means complete:
1) Smaller, lighter, glossier, 'magazine like layout' core books.
2) Core material spread out across multiple books.
3a) Strong instrusion of entirely new setting material into core books, whether than placing such material in a setting book where it normally resides.
3b) Replacement of traditional D&D core setting material with said alternative material.
4) Saving throws replaced by attack rolls.
5) Automatic criticals.
6) Universal critical mechanic now covering all attack spells.
7) Reduced options in skill system (SW:SE like). General reduction in options across the board.
8) Seems likely to have SW:SE like grappling system. Again, general reduction in options across the board.
9) Per encounter balancing as opposed to traditional D&D at-will and per day.
10) Mearls-like 'every class is a spell caster' class design.
11) Although it isn't a problem with the actual system, the marked lack of mentioning fixing most anything I thought needed to be fixed seems to reinforce the whole 'this new game wasn't designed with you in mind'.
12) Dumb wizard tradition names, and the general approach of marrying fluff with mechanics it seems to imply.
13) Touch attacks now resisted by reflex save (removal of touch and flat-footed AC).
14) Save vs. death removed rather than addressed. Indeed, as a general complaint, problimatic mechanics seem to have been tossed rather than fixed, with no indication of something interesting replacing them (at least as yet).
15) New found emphasis on the demonic. Seems to have gone over the top to me. Just not my thing.
16) Probably not a fair complaint because its more of a fear than a complaint, but really rushed playtesting/short production schedule makes me afraid balance is going to end up being worse rather than better.
17) Monsters seem to be becoming more generic in the process of becoming 'simple'. My basic fear is that the whole system will amount to 30 different monster types that you slap two very simple templates on (one race, one class) in some combination (1st level orc brute, for example) to give the monster some small amount of uniqueness. That's nice as a means of on the fly monster generation, and I can approve of that as a tool, but I expect more craftsmanship in monster creation than that. I don't mind a monster having abilities it might not use in any given combat if the description of the monster implies a creature that has those abilities. It means I can use the creature outside of straight up combat as easily as I can in it.
18) Trigger event driven combat system implied by combat description implies to me more mental overhead than before.
19) Wizards losing versitility. Implied diversification of core spell casting classes, and core classes in general rather than unification into a small set of generic classes.
20) Faster leveling (now just 10 encounters rather than 13) in what I already felt was a rushed rate of advancement.
1) Smaller, lighter, glossier, 'magazine like layout' core books.
2) Core material spread out across multiple books.
3a) Strong instrusion of entirely new setting material into core books, whether than placing such material in a setting book where it normally resides.
3b) Replacement of traditional D&D core setting material with said alternative material.
4) Saving throws replaced by attack rolls.
5) Automatic criticals.
6) Universal critical mechanic now covering all attack spells.
7) Reduced options in skill system (SW:SE like). General reduction in options across the board.
8) Seems likely to have SW:SE like grappling system. Again, general reduction in options across the board.
9) Per encounter balancing as opposed to traditional D&D at-will and per day.
10) Mearls-like 'every class is a spell caster' class design.
11) Although it isn't a problem with the actual system, the marked lack of mentioning fixing most anything I thought needed to be fixed seems to reinforce the whole 'this new game wasn't designed with you in mind'.
12) Dumb wizard tradition names, and the general approach of marrying fluff with mechanics it seems to imply.
13) Touch attacks now resisted by reflex save (removal of touch and flat-footed AC).
14) Save vs. death removed rather than addressed. Indeed, as a general complaint, problimatic mechanics seem to have been tossed rather than fixed, with no indication of something interesting replacing them (at least as yet).
15) New found emphasis on the demonic. Seems to have gone over the top to me. Just not my thing.
16) Probably not a fair complaint because its more of a fear than a complaint, but really rushed playtesting/short production schedule makes me afraid balance is going to end up being worse rather than better.
17) Monsters seem to be becoming more generic in the process of becoming 'simple'. My basic fear is that the whole system will amount to 30 different monster types that you slap two very simple templates on (one race, one class) in some combination (1st level orc brute, for example) to give the monster some small amount of uniqueness. That's nice as a means of on the fly monster generation, and I can approve of that as a tool, but I expect more craftsmanship in monster creation than that. I don't mind a monster having abilities it might not use in any given combat if the description of the monster implies a creature that has those abilities. It means I can use the creature outside of straight up combat as easily as I can in it.
18) Trigger event driven combat system implied by combat description implies to me more mental overhead than before.
19) Wizards losing versitility. Implied diversification of core spell casting classes, and core classes in general rather than unification into a small set of generic classes.
20) Faster leveling (now just 10 encounters rather than 13) in what I already felt was a rushed rate of advancement.
Similar Threads
