D&D 4E What's Wrong With 4e Simply Put

[Cbas_10]

I'll preface this post with my usual disclaimer: I don't like the ideas of 4e yet, but I keep an open mind and I really do take part in these 4e discussions because I hope that my opinion turns around and I get interested in the new edition.

• The MMO influences that are there to attract that demographic. Nothing is wrong with an MMO, but MMOs and pen and paper RPGs are like comparing apples and oranges. In 3.5, it seemed to be just at the threshold where there was enough balance between actual role-playing and tactical/fantastic combat that DMs could swing the flavor of their own game in whichever direction suited that particular game. 4e seems to swing things away from role-playing as a part of the core mechanic. Just my feeling...we'll see how it unfolds.

• Simplification of monsters. The first thing that comes to mind is the new beholder. Fewer eye-powers that are all just direct-assault powers. I wont go on about being a grognard and missing the "old beholder." That's not what bugs me. What bugs me is why. The designer (one of the WotC people; can't remember who) wrote that the changes were done because they needed to have the beholder simpler to run; that it was too complex. 11 possible effects...they are static (unlike a wizard NPC), the saves and ranges are static (unlike a wizard NPC), and choices of magic items for it were severely limited (unlike a wizard NPC). What does this mean for NPC antagonists? Will NPCs become lackluster, unimaginative mooks?

• Multiclassing Worries. Okay, there is a lot of chatter about how a 15th level fighter taking 1st level in wizard wastes his level because none of his wizard stuff is useful against CR/Level 16 antagonists. Umm..no kidding. People also say that the "rules penalize that character for taking wizard because his abilities as a 1st level character are pointless in 16th level action". Not sure what game people were playing when they said this, but in my experience, the ability to take 1 level in something and mash it with 15 levels of something else was the almost-broken part. Let me explain. First, you have to realize that 0- and 1st level spells, when used as direct assaults like a 15th level fighter throwing an axe, won't work. Common sense; 1st level spells are fairly elementary spells....you know...basic tricks that the youngest of wizards learn in order to advance studies. So...comparing what a fighter would get if he took the level as a fighter: +1 BAB (which results in a 4th attack per round), +1 to Fortitude saves, 1d10 hp, and a bonus fighter feat. Taking the level as a wizard: +2 Will save, 1d4 hp, Scribe scroll bonus feat, ability to summon a familiar (which, in turn, provides another bonus), the ability to suddenly use a lot more types of magic items, and a versatile wash of abilities/spells. What fighter would not like to be able to get +4 shield bonus for 10 rounds or safely float to the ground durning a fall or instantly swap positions with an ally all the way across a room or ....wow...the list goes on. My character is just a 6th level rogue/1st level diviner wizard. If he got more "power-up" in his wizard stuff just because he was a 7th level character, it would just be silly to play. Multiclassing is not bad right now...but I think 4e wants to idiot-proof it.

The new magic system won't bug me, as long as the generic eldritch blasts (Warlock) don't become more of a norm. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the system from White Wolf's Mage lines. I just hope the "at will" things are very minor effects, compared to level.

I wish D&D would keep the complexity and depth of 3.5.....and come out with a basic version for those who don't want the complexity instead of scaling everything back for everyone.

 

[Seeten]

• The MMO influences that are there to attract that demographic. Nothing is wrong with an MMO, but MMOs and pen and paper RPGs are like comparing apples and oranges. In 3.5, it seemed to be just at the threshold where there was enough balance between actual role-playing and tactical/fantastic combat that DMs could swing the flavor of their own game in whichever direction suited that particular game. 4e seems to swing things away from role-playing as a part of the core mechanic. Just my feeling...we'll see how it unfolds.

If they can tap into the 10 million people + currently playing MMO's, it'll make my ability to find a good group much easier. Here is hoping. That said, I see nothing that reminds me of WoW in the info on the new edition.

Oh yes, and I am Guild Master of the most successful guild on Darrowmere, in the top 1000 guilds in North America. So apparently I know something about WoW.

• Simplification of monsters. The first thing that comes to mind is the new beholder. Fewer eye-powers that are all just direct-assault powers. I wont go on about being a grognard and missing the "old beholder." That's not what bugs me. What bugs me is why. The designer (one of the WotC people; can't remember who) wrote that the changes were done because they needed to have the beholder simpler to run; that it was too complex. 11 possible effects...they are static (unlike a wizard NPC), the saves and ranges are static (unlike a wizard NPC), and choices of magic items for it were severely limited (unlike a wizard NPC). What does this mean for NPC antagonists? Will NPCs become lackluster, unimaginative mooks?

It means DM's can stop coming to ENworld and posting how they ran a combat with a Balor, which lasted 4 rounds, and it would have been so much cooler if they hadnt forgotten the 94 immunities and 18 powers that arent even in its bloated stat block. Do a search if you think I'm lying. There is a huge thread of DM whines about all their mistakes. Many of the dm's here are the cream of the crop too. Just imagine what the run of the mill DM is missing/forgetting.

• Multiclassing Worries. Okay, there is a lot of chatter about how a 15th level fighter taking 1st level in wizard wastes his level because none of his wizard stuff is useful against CR/Level 16 antagonists. Umm..no kidding. People also say that the "rules penalize that character for taking wizard because his abilities as a 1st level character are pointless in 16th level action". Not sure what game people were playing when they said this, but in my experience, the ability to take 1 level in something and mash it with 15 levels of something else was the almost-broken part. Let me explain. First, you have to realize that 0- and 1st level spells, when used as direct assaults like a 15th level fighter throwing an axe, won't work. Common sense; 1st level spells are fairly elementary spells....you know...basic tricks that the youngest of wizards learn in order to advance studies. So...comparing what a fighter would get if he took the level as a fighter: +1 BAB (which results in a 4th attack per round), +1 to Fortitude saves, 1d10 hp, and a bonus fighter feat. Taking the level as a wizard: +2 Will save, 1d4 hp, Scribe scroll bonus feat, ability to summon a familiar (which, in turn, provides another bonus), the ability to suddenly use a lot more types of magic items, and a versatile wash of abilities/spells. What fighter would not like to be able to get +4 shield bonus for 10 rounds or safely float to the ground durning a fall or instantly swap positions with an ally all the way across a room or ....wow...the list goes on. My character is just a 6th level rogue/1st level diviner wizard. If he got more "power-up" in his wizard stuff just because he was a 7th level character, it would just be silly to play. Multiclassing is not bad right now...but I think 4e wants to idiot-proof it.

I dont know what to say to this beyond, "Wow."

The new magic system won't bug me, as long as the generic eldritch blasts (Warlock) don't become more of a norm. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the system from White Wolf's Mage lines. I just hope the "at will" things are very minor effects, compared to level.

I, too, like White Wolf's mage system. Lots of people dont clearly get it, but its elegant. On the other hand, D&D's magic system has never been elegant. It is a kludge. Maybe they will be fixing it.

I wish D&D would keep the complexity and depth of 3.5.....and come out with a basic version for those who don't want the complexity instead of scaling everything back for everyone.

I am not Mr. Simplification, I like feats, I like skill tricks, etc, and I hope they continue. I'd like to have prep time dropped significantly, though, and I see lots of good signs so far with 4e.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

What i least understand about discussions like these is this: If one person tells me "3.5 is nearly the perfect game for me - 4e cannot come close, especially with THAT changes", doesn´t that mean "i´ve found my (nearly) perfect game?" I mean, that´s good. Perhaps 4e is going to be some other guys perfect game. And there are lot´s of guys like me who like all the different edition for some thing or another.

What i like about 4e the most is that some things HAPPENING. Yes, even change for the sake of change, whatever that is: burn me, if you like to. But what i like in my games is designers trying out new stuff all the time: things being on the move. That´s why i really appreciate 4e the more different it gets: this does not mean it´s going to be good, but it´s going to be different. Which i like. Because i know the old editions already.

 

[FireLance]

Multiclassing is not bad right now...but I think 4e wants to idiot-proof it.

This may be, you know, a good thing. The more idiot-proof something is, the more likely it will be adopted by the general public. Consider how auto-focus and auto-flash in cameras made it easier for many people to take decent photographs without needing to be a professional photographer first. EDIT: And in case it wasn't obvious, this allowed the camera companies that made idiot-proof cameras to sell heap big heap idiot proof cameras, and make heap big heap pile of money. You savvy?

 

[Wormwood]

Changes I really like:
- Reshuffling demons and devils along stronger thematic lines than simply 'alignment'.
- At will magics for wizards (finally)
- Eladrin as an otherworldly fey-like archetype
- Virtually anything related to the Book of Nine Swords, which kicked so much ass that I cna't even sit down yet.
- Stripping hit dice/type information out of monsters (i.e. simplifying them)
- Changing the elves by highlighting the contrast between two traditions of 'elf'.
- Tieflings as a core race. Finally we get a break from the freakin' Fellowship.
- Re-imagining fiends by jettisoning 30 years of cruft canon
- Changing the damage of fireball and other spells in order to better fit the new system

 

[Seeten]

Changes I really like:
- Reshuffling demons and devils
- At will magics for wizards
- Eladrin
- Virtually anything related to the Book of Nine Swords
- Stripping hit dice/type information out of monsters (i.e. simplifying them)
- Eladrin
- Changing the elves
- Retcons.
- Tieflings as a core race. Finally we get a break from the freakin' Fellowship.
- Re-imagining fiends by jettisoning 30 years of cruft canon
- Changing the damage of fireball and other spells in order to better fit the new system

Amen, brother. Preach it.

 

[Anthtriel]

Multiclassing is not bad right now...but I think 4e wants to idiot-proof it.

You are joking, right?

Either that, or you never looked at a Wizard 10/Sorcerer 10. It ain't pretty. And yes, it is a valid character concept. That's pretty much what the Simbul in FR looks like, in the official supplements.

The MMO influences that are there to attract that demographic. Nothing is wrong with an MMO, but MMOs and pen and paper RPGs are like comparing apples and oranges. In 3.5, it seemed to be just at the threshold where there was enough balance between actual role-playing and tactical/fantastic combat that DMs could swing the flavor of their own game in whichever direction suited that particular game. 4e seems to swing things away from role-playing as a part of the core mechanic. Just my feeling...we'll see how it unfolds.

How can you get any less role-playing than 3.5 Diplomacy skill?

And please tell me which new 4th edition change equals less role-playing. I'm not mocking you, I'm honestly curious, because apart from the deemphasis of alignment, which helps role-playing, I see not a single change that would even affect it.

And don't tell me writing Profession: Brewer on your character sheet equals role-playing. It doesn't. If anything, 3.5 encourages you to skip over the "fluffy" skills like profession in favor of tumble, spellcraft, spot and other important stuff, leaving you with characters who explicitly cannot do anything out of combat.

 

[schroederlance]

There was a time when people used the D&D rules to simulate various forms of fantasy such as Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Conan, Tolkien, etc. D&D wasn't seen as its own genre then, but now it is. That is unfortunate. I don't know any DM that wants to be bound to the World of Dungeons and Dragons where that cheesy 80's cartoon exists next to the horrid Dungeons and Dragons movie. Every DM and player I know plays and DMs the game in order to create and act in worlds bound only by imagination with enough mechanics to make it a viable game and not in order to partake in some 30+yr holy tradition that is Dungeons and Dragons. 3.5 went farther than ever in demanding a certain playstyle from gamers and I will be happy to see this die a quick, bloody and painful death.

If the 4e changes allow me to use the game as a generic fantasy game rule set, I will be thrilled. If the fluff changes cast aside decades of outlandish junk that has glued itself to the game like barnacles on a ship's hull I am all for it. Who the hell actually DMs or plays D&D in the World of Dungeons and Dragons anyway where all the fluff/lore is used out of the core book as it is anyway? I have never known a DM outside of a 13yr old just learning how to DM who does this kind of thing.

Sundragon

First, I want to make clear that I agree with this statement. I also want 4e to be a generic fantasy rule set that can be used to create any type of fantasy setting.

Sadly, it is not going to happen. From everything I've read coming out of WotC, it seems that they are simply trading one set of basic, core setting assumptions for another set of basic, core setting assumptions.

Their are only two ways that a DM is going to be able to totally simulate his 'perfect' fantasy world:

1) Build his world so that it uses the basic, core setting assumptions that are built into the ruleset.

2) Use a totally generic role playing system.

Personally, I don't think that #2 exists, though GURPS and HERO come close. Every system has built in assumptions that are hard to escape. Sadly, D&D3.X has more than many other systems, which has led to the 'World of Dungeons and Dragons' mentality, and I hope with 4e that this changes back to a more generic approach.

But as I said before, it would seem they aren't making it more generic, just changing over to new setting assumptions.

 

[schroederlance]

sell heap big heap idiot proof cameras, and make heap big heap pile of money. You savvy?

You may want to watch the language there. People have been insulted for lesser things.

 

[Skornn2k7]

I really think that until we see the final product, its really hard to say if 4e or 3.5e is better or worse than the other. I myself am sorta on the assumption that 4e will be just as cool, and fun to play with my friends as the other editions before it.

We just started up a new 3.5e campaign, the one before sorta crased and burned at 10th lvl. Our group numbers 7 players, and the DM. We have a human cleric, 2 wild elf rangers (1 bowman,1 two weapon), human rogue, warforged psychic warrior, human druid, and an Aristocrat. hehe, I am playing from the DMG an Aristocrat, mainly because I just didnt want to try to come up with some char concept after losing my last char from my group just giving up on the campaign. At least that how it felt to me. So I am playing an Aristocrat that is all about skills, and using my influence to help the other chars. I dont plan on doing much fighting, if any at all. I will stand to the rear, and use my knowledge skills to ID critters, and advice on how best to take them down.

So getting to what the topic is about, 4e is something that sounds exciting, and hopefully it will offer something to everyone. I am hoping it will have something to get me excited about making a char that I will enjoy for many lvls.