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

[GVDammerung]

If someone else has already said this, I missed it and apologize for being repetitive. Otherwise -

It hit me tonight what's wrong with Wotc's 4e rollout.

Wotc is correct that 3.5 has problems and that those problems need to be addressed. For example, 3.5 plays too slow, preps too slow, and has some rules that are just unfun (grappling etc.) and so forth.

The problem is that 4E is not just fixing what's _not working_ well, it is also "fixing" what _is working_ well. It is making needless fixes to what is not broken. So to speak, 4e fixes what's broken but also fixes what's _not_ broken. Whether this is out of a "change for change sake," an "in for a penny, in for a pound mentality," or that the designers just don't know when to quit, I can't say.

I'm not passing judgment until I see the final product, but from what I know at this point, 4e is leaving me cold for this reason. If it ain't broke, 4e should not be trying to fix it.

 

[pawsplay]

Indeed. 4e is not only bigger, better, faster, and more, it's the choice of a new generation and not our father's Oldsmobile.

 

[FireLance]

The problem is that 4E is not just fixing what's _not working_ well, it is also "fixing" what _is working_ well. It is making needless fixes to what is not broken. So to speak, 4e fixes what's broken but also fixes what's _not_ broken. Whether this is out of a "change for change sake," an "in for a penny, in for a pound mentality," or that the designers just don't know when to quit, I can't say.

Examples? Apart from the flavor changes, which are mostly a matter of taste.

If I've learned one thing from the Internet, it's that something that works for me might not work for someone else, and vice-versa.

In addition, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of improving even something that is working well.

 

[pawsplay]

Changes I already resent:
- 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 (why not just simplify it?)
- Stripping iconic monsters from the MM
- Eladrin
- And the whole elf retcon that resulted in the appearance of the eladrin
- Retcons in general
- Tieflings as a core race, rather than a rare monster
- Invalidating the Fiendish Codeces
- Changing the damage of fireball. Why?

 

[WhatGravitas]

- Changing the damage of fireball. Why?

Why? Because the game system changed! Honestly, that something, that bothers me the least. Why? Because this was the reason why damage spells sucked. Hard. Because monsters received more hp than ever, still the spells were in the same league as before. Fireball wasn't that much affected, considering you get it early. But look at Cone of Cold!

And for the rest: I also get that vibe, at least partially, but I honestly don't know enough to differentiate between COOLNESS changes, new flavour sprinkling, and marketing. Therefore, I wait until I'm in a better position to judge that aspect.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Cadfan]

Huh. I like almost every single one of those things. Some I absolutely love.

Maybe 4e really isn't your father's oldsmobile.

 

[Vigilance]

The whole notion that "if it aint broke don't fix it" leads to changing almost nothing.

Why? Because how many things can the majority of D&D players agree are broken?

Not a whole heck of a lot.

No edition of D&D was "broken".

Yet every edition of D&D has, taken as a whole, been better than its predecessors (imo).

Not *every aspect* of every edition was better than the previous edition. Some things will be tried but won't work.

They will fix the old bugs, and in the process, create some brilliance, while also creating some all new bugs.

Taking three steps forward, so they can take two back.

That might not be pretty, but it's still progress.

 

[WarlockLord]

The static saves worry me. I don't know why, but they do. I think it kinda removes a player's control over their own fate...or the illusion they have of control...and removes a lot of dramatic tension.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

- And the whole elf retcon that resulted in the appearance of the eladrin
- Retcons in general

Retcon is a misnomer. It's more like a diffcon. If the implied setting were Greyhawk, it would be a retcon.

 

[Marnak]

My suspicion is that Wizards were in a tough spot in the runup to 4e. They wanted to tweak the rules of 3.5e, and they also needed to release a new edition for the sake of their company's fiscal health. The latter factor also required that whatever was produced be called "Fourth Edition." In other words, something like 3.75e sounded too terrible to be profitable. Now, they could have released something with only a few minor rules improvements and called it "Fourth Edition" but the howls of protest from the boards about the company trying to milk the fans would have been ubiquitous (and even worse in the opinions of the Wizards staffers) spot on. A 4E that didn't change many of the rules would instantly be compared to the other edition changes (except for 3e to 3.5e of course) and found wanting as a true "edition change." Thus, Wizards was backed into a corner where they had to make MAJOR changes to the rules in order to justify the money they would be asking fans to spend and the title "Fourth Edition" as well. Now, this does not necessarily mean that 4e will suck. I think the folks working at Wizards are some of the brightest people in the business, and I detect genuine enthusiasm for 4e among them. I think they got a kick out of the challenge of Fourth Edition. I would not be surprised if they produce a very good game, but I think the process that led to fourth edition was a very different one than those which led to the other editions.