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

[Zogmo]

Here is your answer

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

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.

If it ain't broke, 4e should not be trying to fix it.

There is a reeeeally simple answer to this post of yours.

If they were only going to fix the things that were broken then it would be 3.75e and not 4e.



People would be screaming that WotC was just doing a slight upgrade that shouldn't have been called 4e. And that it was being done just for the money and not the love (betterment) of the game.

Which is what they are doing. Hence 4e and not 3.75.

And if they only ever fixed the "broken" stuff then 3.0 would have been just an upgrade from 2.0 and not too many people want that.

They have to take chances on not just fixing broken stuff but improving upon that which is pretty good already.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Just confining myself to d20 games, there is the Conan RPG's Base Magic skill, which all classes get (thus facilitating multi-classing into Sorcerer).

The Lone Wolf RPG (same publisher) has a similar concept. Caster classes get a magical BAB (best progression) to use on their damaging effects, and a level-denedent base damage they cause with them. All other classes that try to use an item-based magical attack have to use half their class level rounded down for attacking. Since multi-classing is heavily discouraged (due to setting reasons), there are no rules if they stack or overlap. You can get multiple attacks from a high enough magical BAB, and you add your Int modifier to every attack. The Magician of Dessi (think Grey Star) also can use his magical BAB when fighting with his Wizard's Staff (and use Willpower points to increase the damage output something nasty ).

 

[Zogmo]

Freaky I tell ya!

I'm fairly sanguine about it. If it's terrible, there's still Castles & Crusades.

I always find this attitude so bizarre. I've read so many posts since the announcement of 4e of people saying they are leaving D&D completely.

If Castles & Crusades is so much better, then why are you playing D&D at all? Why would a new version make you abandon what you seem to like playing right now and make you change to an entirely different game?

 

[Zogmo]

More dead cows.

The Sacred Cows are dead. Long live the Sacred Cows! [

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I always find this attitude so bizarre. I've read so many posts since the announcement of 4e of people saying they are leaving D&D completely.

If Castles & Crusades is so much better, then why are you playing D&D at all? Why would a new version make you abandon what you seem to like playing right now and make you change to an entirely different game?

Uhm...just before the C&C squad comes crashing in here full throttle...C&C is actually not THAT much different from D&D, especially the older editions. It's an OGL game that changed some things from 3E and went back to some concepts from older editions (different XP charts, more saves, etc.)
So basically he's simply going to a D&D version of his choice, not to an entirely different game.

 

[Zogmo]

What's wrong with 4e even more simply put: It's too early to tell. Check back with me after I've run it for a few months... sometime next autumn.

I'm sorry but this just isn't a good idea.

You should be jumping to conclusions and taking the slightest hint of a change by screaming the sky is falling, and then say your never playing D&D again.

 

[Wolfspider]

It's not all about you.

It's about bringing in the next generation of gamers. Either gamers need to cut out the nachos and bring in a WHOLE lot more new players, or you need to accept that all the roleplaying companies (nWoD, anyone?) are going to have to make changes to bring in more new players.

Oh, I'm very aware that it's not all about me. It's not all about you, either. It's not all about any one of the fine members here at ENWorld. It's about the community. The WotC crew area bunch of darn commies.

And more new gamers would be a wonderful thing. I certainly won't begrudge 4e for doing that. I don't want the hobby to wither and die. I want it to thrive.

I'm wondering if bringing new gamers into the fold is really the focus, though. I have heard mention of a "basic game," but not very many details, and it hasn't really been promoted much yet. It seems like at first that they are focusing on established gamers with the realize of the three corebooks all at once.

I really do hope that they make a whizbang kind of basic game this time. I was rather underwhelmed by the D&D 3.0/3.5 one. I thought that the D&D for Dummies books were a lot more useful in that regard.

 

[Bagpuss]

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.

It bothers me more because of the all or nothing effect you are going to get with area effect attacks. When players all rolled their own saves, there was a chance that some PC's would make it, others wouldn't so the chance of everyone failing at the same time was slim, so some players could continue the fight while other took time out to recover.

Now if the enemy rolls well every one with get hit for full damage (or double on a critical), and you are all in trouble at the same time.

For example, last night the party got hit by two overlapping acid cones, I with my terrible +4 Reflex save actually made both saves (20pts damage), the elven wizard with his average +7, failed both (40 points damage), and the Monk made one (evasion) and failed another (8 pts), the paladin passed one and failed one (14pts). Because of the mix of damage The melee types were able to cover the wizard while he withdrew to recover.

Now in 4e if the attackers both rolled well we would all be taking 40 pts of damage or worse if they got a critical all taking more. So there would no one in a position to defend the others while they recover. Unless they has significantly weakened the damage on AoE spells, or given some other way round this and abilities I can see this being a real problem.

That to me is a case of fixing something that isn't broken and in turn creating a new problem.

 

[Wolfspider]

And an earlier poster responded with a reason I think many changes are being made:

The issues with 3E are so fundamental in the system that it requires an overhauling to fix some of them.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it, then.

 

[Zogmo]

Uhm...just before the C&C squad comes crashing in here full throttle...C&C is actually not THAT much different from D&D, especially the older editions. It's an OGL game that changed some things from 3E and went back to some concepts from older editions (different XP charts, more saves, etc.)
So basically he's simply going to a D&D version of his choice, not to an entirely different game.

Hey!

Ya, I do know now about C&C. It seems weird that somebody would abandon 3.5e because of 4e.

Apparently D&D is the game of his/her choice so why not keep playing that version that they are playing now?
What just happened to make it not worthy of playing anymore?
C&C didn't just get that much more awesome than the D&D he/she is playing now. If C&C is the better game then why aren't they playing it now instead of just threatening to abandon 3.5e?

They must not really like it as much as they claim by abandoning it so easily and totally going to a similar but different game.

That's my confusion.