What is wrong with 4E?

[Jawar]

What's w 4erong about 4e?

Well, mechanically 2 things:

1. Still the damn hp - maybe 5e will function only with conditions (normal, bloodied, 'terribly bloodied', stunned, dazed, etc.)

2. What's with +1/2 level adjustment in almost anything?
Rip it out. No need.
It would be simpler to just compare two adversaries. If the attacker more than one level in difference from the defender, just apply +/- mod per 2 levels difference.

Too radical and simplistic? You bet I am.

That said they made THE BEST EDITON EVER.
I could not imagine they would come this far. My compliments to the team (I play since Basic set, by the way, regularly).

 

[waysoftheearth]

Hello Blackbrrd,

Thanks for your reply.

Its a bit funny that you (the thread starter) only mentions what is left out, while skipping what is added (Dragonborn, Eladrin, Tiefling, Warlock)? Each class takes a lot more space now than before - except the full casters that take less space.

It wasn't my intention to complain about races and classes that didn't make the Player's Handbook. I only intended to observe one of the areas in which the publishers managed to cut the word count back. You may also notice that I added that it didn't really bother me -- I'm sure most of the missing races and classes will eventually surface in supplementary publications.

Spells - eh I mean powers - are much shorter in description than earlier and more to the point.

Yes, that was part of my initial disappointment. While short and to the point may be ideal for pure rules systems, I have always thought of D&D as more than just rules system -- that's the distinction between D&D and the d20 system. 4E still is more than just a pure rules system.

However, that being said, my initial feeling is that 4E may have gone too far in that direction. The way 4E powers and feats and so on are described is almost pure function, and the tone of what "flavor" text is provided is too gimmicky for my taste.

Still, it is interesting to see how other Forum Members are reading it.


Thanks again

 

[theNater]

Because, honestly, can you tell me what Windmill of Doom does? Anvil of Doom? Hammer and Anvil? Could you honestly keep them separate, in your head? The names have so little correspondence to what is actually going on (and even that is often nebulous), it isn't even funny.

Ooh, a game! Can I play?

Windmill of Doom: Sounds like some kind of "I spin my sword around and kill everything nearby" power. I'm guessing 2-handed fighter or 2-weapon ranger that hits multiple nearby enemies.

Anvil of Doom: Much harder. I'm guessing some sort of reactive sword-and-board fighter power. Make the enemies break themselves on the defender, somehow.

Hammer and Anvil: I kinda remember this one. It's a warlord power, right? Classic "me and my ally surround you and beat the living daylights out of you." I think the warlord and the ally each get an attack, and they might need to be flanking to make it go.

My books should be coming in the mail today, so we'll see how I did.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, that was part of my initial disappointment. While short and to the point may be ideal for pure rules systems, I have always thought of D&D as more than just rules system -- that's the distinction between D&D and the d20 system. 4E still is more than just a pure rules system.

However, that being said, my initial feeling is that 4E may have gone too far in that direction. The way 4E powers and feats and so on are described is almost pure function, and the tone of what "flavor" text is provided is too gimmicky for my taste.

Personally, I like the minimal fluff in powers. It gives you a basic idea of how it works and if you've got a better, or more fitting, fluff concept you're completely free to change it as you see fit (assuming it still matches the function, of course).

 

[dfan]

What's with +1/2 level adjustment in almost anything?
Rip it out. No need.
It would be simpler to just compare two adversaries. If the attacker more than one level in difference from the defender, just apply +/- mod per 2 levels difference.

1) Then the players would always have to be told the level of their adversary.
2) What about non-adversary rolls like skill checks?

 

[Kitirat]

Hello Forum Members,

That there are fewer character classes will no doubt be remedied with future releases. But there is less also less of a distinction between classes -- a 4E class seems to be just bags of feats and powers to choose from. Because any character can do anything, a player's choice of class is far less significant.

Thanks for reading

Been playing 4th a while. Finally had a long session spanning two days and found that indeed even people who thought they would not like it loved the game. One mentioned he had thought it would suck because the stuff he had saw made him feel "everyone one is the same". Then he played it.

When ya play the classes feel REALLY different. For example the paladin and fighter (and they played nearly the same in 3.5 at 1st level) read nearly the same. Same catagory, both can mark, both wear roughly the same equipment (paladins start one type better) but in play both have a massively different feel. I would highly suggest playing before getting too disappointed with class difference.

They look the same because of how they are presented, but when you actually play, this is not even close to the case.

You get a choice every level, but there are less choices per level (for spellcasters) where you would get a choice. But you get something everytime. This made a difference to the guys.

That said I agree there is much less content in terms of words and with less classes there is les to explore for the given books. And yes this means they will have more to bring with the splt books. Still, I do not care personally. It is a business, let them make money. Rather have them in business than out because they selected a poor plan.

The PHB is wavy, the other two are not for me.

See ya,
Ken

 

[quindia]

My 1st edition books are 30 years old and the pages are still flat...

 

[Dice4Hire]

Very true. It took me two days to read the PHB, and I really need to make up a few characters and read it cover to cover again to get all of it.

On the other hand, it took me thirty minutes to flip through the MM and realize the basics, when I play a monster I'll look it up in detail

The DMG took 30 minutes too, and most of that was writing out an index on a piece of typewriter paper of the important parts of the book, so I can find the tables again easily.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

While it's a pretty different game than 3rd edition, I can't say that I believe anything is inherently wrong with the system.

Is there broken stuff? Yes.
Is there stuff that's not so good? Yes.
Is it a more streamlined system? Yes.
Was there stuff left out? Sure.
Was new stuff inserted? Yep.

I think the important thing to ask is: "Does 4th edition achieve its design goals?" That one I can't answer, but many folks who have run it and played it seem to think "yes."

I also get the distinct impression that many feel that there is not enough distance between 3rd edition and 4th. 2nd AD&D was released in... what? The late 80s? 3rd edition came out in 2000. And unlike AD&D, there were still books being released for 3rd edition up to 6 months ago. So I get the feeling many people have not reached the sense of closure with 3rd edition that they might've had with 2nd.

That's just my feeling, though.

 

[Jawar]

1) Then the players would always have to be told the level of their adversary.
2) What about non-adversary rolls like skill checks?

Thanks for your reply and suggestions, but no. Really.

The players always roll without bonus/penalties, assuming assuming the opponent is a the same level.

BUT (big but) if the DM notices a hit is a miss or the other way around, just informs the player.


That would be an interesting way, and a very natural one, to catch a glimpse of the opponent level!