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

[The Little Raven]

The thing is, so many little things are being changed, things that have been quite constant throughout editions, that this new system is really not even D&D anymore. They may put the name Dungeons and Dragons on it, but it's not recognizable as it.

Things like Thac0, a negative Armor Class, percentile thief skills, no skills for anyone else, substandard character customization (nonweapon proficiencies... lol), dual-classing versus multi-classing, racial class limitations, racial level limitations... yeah, all were called integral parts of D&D by people taking your same position about 3e. Those people said 3e was no longer D&D because it killed too many sacred cows. Why is it that you're immediately right (3e is D&D) and they're immediately wrong (3e is not D&D)?

Come 4e, no Gnome PC's, no Illusionists, and no running out of spells.

Again with the misinformation.

1. Gnomes are in the Monster Manual 1, with a writeup in the "Monsters as Races" Appendix. So, that means *gasp* Gnome PCs.
2. You can run out of spells. Spells are your per-day resource as a wizard, with arcane strikes and power words being your at-will and per-encounter resources.

With prior edition changes, they might have done little things like take some classes out (Like taking Assassin and Barbarian out for 2e) or putting in new concepts (like Prestige Classes in 3e, restoring the Assassin in the process), but there was a sense of continuity, that what was there was built on what came before.

Not really. Look at the 2e core books. They used Bigby and Mordenkainen in spells and such, but all of the examples given in the book for character archetypes stemmed from medieval folklore, not D&D fantasy.

4e takes that respect for the past and trashes it, it builds a whole new fantasy RPG from the ground up and attaches the name "Dungeons and Dragons" to it, in that sense it's a far bigger jump than the 1e to 2e, the 2e to 3e or the 3 to 3.5 jumps, it's an active severing of D&D from it's heritage, it's telling longtime veterans that they are obsolete and WotC wants new players. It's telling a lot of players that what they've come to expect and love about D&D is "wrong" and not fun and was not fun all along.

I remember hearing this back in 2000 before 3e launched. It strikes me as wrong now just as it did then.

I've got bookcases and bookcases full of D&D books, I've spent thousands and thousands of dollars on D&D books since the early 90's, and I'm looking at 4e and seeing it as a signal from WotC that my money is no longer desired, they'd rather be selling to pre-teens as a way to compete with WoW

Well, since you made it clear that you already have the game you want, why would they want to market to you? Play your perfect D&D and be happy.

 

[Cbas_10]

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.

Well, I certainly did not intend to challenge your authority, there, especially as I was not singling out a particular MMO. I was referring to the style of play. In an MMO, the game is about killing things, powering up, reapeat. It really is fun, and I'm not knocking it. RPGs include that, of course...but also take it into the realms of personal interactions, mysteries, depths of character development (that will vary, based on the tastes of each group), and virtually any sort of plot and story arc that the DMs/players can imagine. My point was that I felt that too much of the MMO style is being introduced, limiting the role-playing aspect. Limiting the choice. At least before, we had the option of high or low drama, gritty or fantastic adventuring, etc.

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.

Well, there is a vast difference in complexity, comparing a Balor to a Beholder, but I see your point in that case. However, I would also say that by the time a group of players gets to 19th+ level, the DM would have built up the experience needed for running and organizing such encounters. Some DMs and players opt for jumping right to the top, skipping levels and such. Thus, they are biting off more than they can chew, going for the advanced, complex stuff before getting used to the basics and intermediate activities. Not a good idea, no matter what game or hobby.

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?

Very, very good point. But the complex manually operated cameras are still being used by the professionals. Two markets. Basic and Advanced. The photography industry, including the professionals, were never forced to go to the simpler cameras and abandon old techniques. I cannot see the future of D&D and I don't know what will be in the 4e books, but from the previews we've seen so far....this is the impression I get.

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.

Actually, Sorcerer 20/Wizard 10/Archmage 2, but I understand that you have feelings about a Wiz 10/Sor 10 character. Not sure what is not pretty about that sort of character. That sort of character is a low-level spell machine. Trade high level spells and ability to punch through spell resistance for a horde of lower-level spells. Not everything out there has SR, anyway. I could go on, but Wiz10/Sor10 is not a bad concept....unless you are putting that character in a position and asking of it to do things that it is obviously not made to do. If you need to have high level spells and want to get through SR everytime, make a single-class at 20. If you want a gaggle of lower-level spells and realize the utility of such, make the 10/10. You can't have both. It is not even logical. 4e has (thus far) implied that you can have your cake and eat it, too. Like that Gestault idea from one of the off-core rulebook options.

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.

Well, I don't count the skill of Diplomacy as proof of role-playing. Maybe a skill like that is a bit of mechanical assist, but it certainly is not role-playing on its own. Regarding 4e's possible deemphasis on role-playing, my concerns about that come from the fact that we have seen absolutely nothing but crunchy combat, references to Bo9S (chock full of more fighting and combat), and references to "Social Encounters" that give the impression that we will be dicing out conversations with NPCs instead of actually talking to each other at the table. Finally, I do actually think that including such things as Professions on a character sheet indirectly increases role-playing in D&D; because you are including such things on the sheet, you are demonstrating that there is more depth to the character than simply being an aimless wanderer killing things and selling loot. Since it is something you devote points to on your sheet, you will want to make use of it in the game by enriching your character and game experience with it. Nobody is forcing anyone to take points away from an optimal build or stop you from maxing out skills for combat....we have those options open to us.

I am well aware that players can have brewers and diplomatic characters without those skills on the sheets anymore (I'm not sure if they will be in 4e or not), but their absence will just show that the game itself is no longer meant for them and does not support those actions. I'd rather have aspects in the game that we can pick and choose from and ignore bits of instead of having fewer options, thus restricting our styles of play. Bo9S is an awesome suppliment for groups who want to use it, but it is not something I want to see in the core classes in my games. Some of you might like it, but that is all good. I don't, and it influences my decisions about whether or not I want to go to 4e.

 

[Kintara]

Things like Thac0, a negative Armor Class, percentile thief skills, no skills for anyone else, substandard character customization (nonweapon proficiencies... lol), dual-classing versus multi-classing, racial class limitations, racial level limitations... yeah, all were called integral parts of D&D by people taking your same position about 3e. Those people said 3e was no longer D&D because it killed too many sacred cows. Why is it that you're immediately right (3e is D&D) and they're immediately wrong (3e is not D&D)?



Again with the misinformation.

1. Gnomes are in the Monster Manual 1, with a writeup in the "Monsters as Races" Appendix. So, that means *gasp* Gnome PCs.
2. You can run out of spells. Spells are your per-day resource as a wizard, with arcane strikes and power words being your at-will and per-encounter resources.

Yeah, and I even remember one of the designers mentioning a desire to write up an Illusionist class.

Anyway, I marvel at what people consider essential to D&D. I mean I can easily imagine playing D&D without ever seeing any "Gnome Illusionists" (and so would the first players of D&D). Also, why isn't anyone complaining about the lack of an "Elf" or "Assassin" core class (using the term loosely)? I don't get it.

You know, it's kind of funny because while "racial classes" may not be coming back, race has returned to the leveling process. In 3.5, your racial choice is mostly a static decision. In 4th, racial abilities expand as you gain levels.

 

[Aeolius]

1. Gnomes are in the Monster Manual 1, with a writeup in the "Monsters as Races" Appendix.

It would be nice if WotC released said appendix before the launch of 4e, so DMs and Players alike could prepare.

Yes, I'm hoping sea elves, locathah, merfolk, and a host of other aquatic beasties are in there, and thus in the 4e SRD, so that third party publishers might be able to release substantial undersea adventures.

 

[Cbas_10]

Your example isn't the problem. If a PC splits his classes evenly between a spellcasting class and any other class, he's no longer all that useful in a higher level party. Just look at all the PrCs that have tried to fix specific examples of that over the years.

You are right. Spellcaster 10/Nonspellcaster 10 isn't a good mix. It's like trying to train for two vastly different careers and expecting to keep up with the veteran specialists. Even the rules, when they talk about multi-classing, seem to assume that there is more of a difference between classes' levels. Preferred classes, XP penalties, etc.

There may be a way to make such a character as effective at fighting AND magic as 20th level characters....but aside from the crazy Gestault rules, I'm not sure how. Maybe 4e will provide systems where you give up a bit of each class to keep primary bits at higher levels....dunno.

 

[The Little Raven]

It would be nice if WotC released said appendix before the launch of 4e, so DMs and Players alike could prepare.

Um.

I have to ask.

Why? Getting an appendix that you can't use before the books come out anyway is useless, since you'd need the PHB to make sense of it all.

 

[Rechan]

Well, I certainly did not intend to challenge your authority, there, especially as I was not singling out a particular MMO. I was referring to the style of play. In an MMO, the game is about killing things, powering up, reapeat. It really is fun, and I'm not knocking it. RPGs include that, of course...but also take it into the realms of personal interactions, mysteries, depths of character development (that will vary, based on the tastes of each group), and virtually any sort of plot and story arc that the DMs/players can imagine. My point was that I felt that too much of the MMO style is being introduced, limiting the role-playing aspect. Limiting the choice. At least before, we had the option of high or low drama, gritty or fantastic adventuring, etc.

Isn't there a company whose tagline is "An adventure/dungeon where you don't have to talk to anyone"? Wasn't 1e basically "Go into a dungeon, take the loot, and kill the thing that owns it"? Loot = XP in 1e. How is that not "Go into dungeon, kill/loot, repeat"? Most of the D&D system in the books is geared towards combat. The vast majority of the feats, spells, etc are geared towards "killing the opponent".

Also, there are social MMORPGs, just so you know.

 

[The Little Raven]

Also, there are social MMORPGs, just so you know.

Exactly.

Eve Online is more about building partnerships and alliances than killing things and taking it's stuff (a classic D&D trope that MMOs adapted). Second Life is more about social interaction and creative output than anything else. Star Wars Galaxies was all about the action and adventure of being a moisture farmer (if you so chose).

Don't judge all MMOs on the limited exposure you might have. There's a whole lot of surprising options out there.

 

[Kintara]

You are right. Spellcaster 10/Nonspellcaster 10 isn't a good mix. It's like trying to train for two vastly different careers and expecting to keep up with the veteran specialists. Even the rules, when they talk about multi-classing, seem to assume that there is more of a difference between classes' levels. Preferred classes, XP penalties, etc.

There may be a way to make such a character as effective at fighting AND magic as 20th level characters....but aside from the crazy Gestault rules, I'm not sure how. Maybe 4e will provide systems where you give up a bit of each class to keep primary bits at higher levels....dunno.

Why would the XP penalty rules encourage you to level unequally? It seems to me to be the opposite, unless your race hands you a pass. Personally, I think you should be able to make an Elf Ranger/Cleric without worrying about sucking.

I think they are going to handle this by scaling class abilities by character level. I suspect that multiclassed characters like, say, a Cleric X/Ranger X, will have cross-niche versatility, but it's at the expense of some depth and well-roundedness in either class (like you'd expect, except that now the abilities you pick up will scale more nicely, so the price you pay isn't power, but in selection). I'm actually looking forward to trying a Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard as a "fifth character."

 

[Wolfspider]

An earlier poster hinted at the reason I think so many changes are being done to the game in 4th edition.

If they just fix the few things that are wrong with 3.5, there will be no justification for a new edition at all. So in order to justify the buying of a new set of core books et al., they make bunches of new changes, enough that they are essentially producting a new game system instead simply releasing a new edition.