What is missing from 4E

[Aus_Snow]

You'd be hard pressed to think of ANY RPG with a working economy.

Very true. Harn might qualify, but even then, I'm not 100% sure. Nothing else springs to mind (fantasy-wise).

 

[Fifth Element]

You know I'm really tired of "just make it up." becoming the answer to any problem or issue expressed by someone about 4e, and the "imagination jibe" that's just classic....

1. I think "just make it up" is a valid response to some criticisms of 4E.

2. I don't think any poster (any reasonable poster anyway) posits "just make it up" as the answer to any problem with 4E, as you claim.

3. "Just make it up, where's your imagination?" is definitely insulting. It's not appropriate, ever.

 

[Umbran]

Is it that god damned hard to use your imagination?

Just as hard as watching your tone and language.

We expect you to be civil and respectful to other posters on EN World. Our Rule #1 (that you signed on to when you created your account) is "Keep it civil". You are pushing beyond the edge of the family-friendly tone Morrus desires for these boards. The language filters caught you several times, so you may want to reconsider your overall tone.

If you've got any questions on language, tone, or how we expect you to treat other posters, please feel free to take it to e-mail with any of the moderators - our addresses are in a post stickied to the top of the Meta Forum

 

[billd91]

And here I thought 4E was supposed to be a "kewl superpowers" game. Or so I hear. Over. And over again.

It is.
But it isn't.

Here's what I mean:
When I first heard about the character roles, I really started thinking this sounded a lot like City of Heroes. Then when I saw the powers, that thought was reinforced because what you had was a set of powers, increasing modestly in strength as the character levels, and designed to fit in with the character's expected party role. But like City of Heroes, the powers are actually quite tepid compared to a real superhero RPG like Champions, Mutants and Masterminds, Villains and Vigilantes, and so on because, as an online game, it needs to be. The character building and action is adjudicated by algorithm and not a human referee.

I see 4th edition in much the same light. There are plenty of powers, well above the mundane abilities of the average joe (the most effective being the astonishing ability to recover), yet hardly any of them achieve the level of fantasy or wonder you see in fantasy literature or movies. Most of it safely pushes a little bit higher in capability, but still only topping out around 7-8 dice, with about a 55% chance of succeeding at affecting a level-appropriate encounter. Not too much really wowsers about that. Nothing pushes the envelope. No real interesting flashes of power.

 

[RefinedBean]

I see 4th edition in much the same light. There are plenty of powers, well above the mundane abilities of the average joe (the most effective being the astonishing ability to recover), yet hardly any of them achieve the level of fantasy or wonder you see in fantasy literature or movies. Most of it safely pushes a little bit higher in capability, but still only topping out around 7-8 dice, with about a 55% chance of succeeding at affecting a level-appropriate encounter. Not too much really wowsers about that. Nothing pushes the envelope. No real interesting flashes of power.

That is all, of course, you're considered opinion, right Bill? Because I've had the opposite feel with 4E: the powers and abilities granted to the heroes put them far above normal ken, just like any other edition of D&D. It definitely still feels like high-fantasy to me!

 

[Stalker0]

Compared to high level 3e, high level 4e looks pretty tame in comparison.

Personally, I like this...but I can sympathize with the OP on this one. Some people like the "all power" of high level 3e, and its not replicated in 4e. There is no wish, no blink of an eye teleport, no big domination, no complete sensory altering illusions, etc. For many this is a good change, but there's certainly a portion of the population out there that really misses these things.

This is one I've thought about when I consider 3e vs 4e. In 3rd edition, I would make a high level character, and off game think about all the amazing things I could do. Then I got to the game, and it never panned out like I expected. Still, in a game that's fantasy, there's something to be said for the ability to dream of the possibility of said power, even if it doesn't always turn out that way when the die hit the table. In 4e, while I'm still awesome, there is a certain glass ceiling that is more obvious.

To the OP, I have one question....has your group tried epic 4e yet? Its certainly not the same as high level 3e, but perhaps your player will be more satisfied than he thought after playing it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

To the OP, I have one question....has your group tried epic 4e yet? Its certainly not the same as high level 3e, but perhaps your player will be more satisfied than he thought after playing it.

We haven't played epic yet. My other group has played in an ongoing Paragon game, and I notice that the power level is noticeably higher, though ironically more on the side of the monsters. In the Paragon games we've played, its not the what the PCs do themselves but the insane challenges they survive that make the game more epic. The player I spoke of has only played in a one-shot Paragon level game based on a Dungeon module, and it was from this game that his comments primarily came from. I can say that the module was far less "epic" than the Paragon campaign I have been running.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The power to win or change the world in one action has been removed. This is what my player misses.

And here I thought 4E was supposed to be a "kewl superpowers" game. Or so I hear. Over. And over again.

I think what people are trying to say is that 4E has less magical magic by toning that down, and more incredulous, unbelievable "mundane" powers.

The former makes for a less intriguing world of possibility and fantasy, and the latter challenges suspension of disbelief.

These are both unfortunate side effects from trying to balance the game, I think, but the cause was noble enough.

I see 4th edition in much the same light. There are plenty of powers, well above the mundane abilities of the average joe (the most effective being the astonishing ability to recover), yet hardly any of them achieve the level of fantasy or wonder you see in fantasy literature or movies. Most of it safely pushes a little bit higher in capability, but still only topping out around 7-8 dice, with about a 55% chance of succeeding at affecting a level-appropriate encounter. Not too much really wowsers about that. Nothing pushes the envelope. No real interesting flashes of power.

I think these quotes are the most accurate on this thread for differing reasons. While 4E borrowed so much from 3E, the philosphy behind it was completely different; jarringly so for certain players. Halivar presents the central power paradox of 3E vs. 4E in concert with thecasualoblivion to which rounser provides the most succinct answer. The balancing of the arcane with the mundane is the core issue here. It is why some miss the raw power of 3E's arcane masters, while at the same time reviling some of the more wuxia/anime style "p0w3rz" of the "mundane/martial" in 4E. By having them meet halfway, you end up with a balanced product that is fun to play, but that perhaps bears little resemblence to much of the popular fantasy fiction that feeds the minds of many gamers.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[DandD]

Critisizing 4th edition for the mundane classes to have wuxia-anime style mundane powers seems to be a little bit daft... Be it the monk, the duelist, and then of course the cool Book of nine swords-supplement, 3rd edition brought them all before.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Critisizing 4th edition for the mundane classes to have wuxia-anime style mundane powers seems to be a little bit daft... Be it the monk, the duelist, and then of course the cool Book of nine swords-supplement, 3rd edition brought them all before.

Daft? The criticism of certain powers is because as Rounser says "they challenge a players suspension of disbelief". Now this isn't for all players but it is for some.

I'm not seeing your point here with the 3.5 duelist. However with the monk, while core, such abilities were all self-contained in the one class (and so could be easily removed by the DM who did not want to mix Asian with their Medieval). The book of 9 swords was an experimental supplement - enjoyed by some, ignored by others. These aspects were also criticized by some when 3E was the prime D&D product. However, in having such powers spread throughout the 4E core, it has become a lot more difficult for the DM to excise these elements - and easier for some to just stick with 3E or pathfinder, or be stuck in the middle (playing 4E but not enjoying it).

Thus, why I think this aspect is one of the most significant contributors in the 3E/4E divide. For some, it has become more difficult for 4E to be melded into the game their group wants to play. This is nothing new though, all editions have their detractors in this regard.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise