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

[nutluck]

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's something I definitely do not share. In fact, apart from the new Mage, most gamers I've spoken with have found the nWoD books as good as or better than most of the oWoD.

See i have experience the exact opposite in a major way. I playing WoD games online and of the 60+ players on the site only about 20 have liked the nWoD and almost all of them have tried it. In our TT group we tried nWoD and only one guy liked it. Finally I would like to point out that before the switch Vampire was their biggest seller and afterwards Exalted was and no it didn't get a big boost in sales. Also all indications where that WW fell in the market shares, yes part of that was 3rd DnD but I also think part of it was so drasticly switching WoD that was selling well.

I know many people liked it and it likely brought it more, but I know far more people that didn't like it personally. IMHO I think that was what eventually lead them to being bought out.

 

[Nebulous]

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?

None of these things bother me in the slightest. All i'm worried about is how the final rules mechanics will work and if it will still be a fun game. Until i see and experience it i can't say for sure.

 

[Rechan]

My only real concern is that the MM is going to be packed with 'Monster: Orc with Axe, Orc who Yells, Orc who's real quiet and uses a Bow'.

I want as many different monsters as possible crammed into the book, not the MMV which had 'Monster entry: Monster sample with class levels".

That'st he only thing taht's really discouraged me about 4e.

 

[Shazman]

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.

The funny thing is that they errated out AoE criticals in SAGA because they were too lethal to the whole party. You'd think they would've learned from that.

 

[Nebulous]

My only real concern is that the MM is going to be packed with 'Monster: Orc with Axe, Orc who Yells, Orc who's real quiet and uses a Bow'.

I want as many different monsters as possible crammed into the book, not the MMV which had 'Monster entry: Monster sample with class levels".

And that's a valid concern. One saving grace is that we don't actually NEED three hundred different monsters in the core book. By the time we're done exhausting most of those another MM will be out. There will always be more baddies to fight in D&D. Hell, i'd say that's what Wizards does best, throwing endless monsters at us to slaughter.

Maybe they can strike a fun balance between the MM1 and MM5.

 

[Cadfan]

The funny thing is that they errated out AoE criticals in SAGA because they were too lethal to the whole party. You'd think they would've learned from that.

There's no guarantee that 4e AoE criticals work the same way as SAGA AoE criticals.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not to pick on you specifically, but this opens up a discussion that's been percolating in my brain for some time now.

Gandalf is actually an astoundingly poor example to bring into any discussion of D&D spellcasting becasue Gandalf is not what you'd consider a 'player character'. He's a GM plot device that enables certain things to happen, such as the defeat of the Balrog, so the real PC's - the rest of the Fellowship - get to see some cool stuff and not die. Besides being a great example of why certain great books would make very poor games, Galdalf is constrained in ways that are only hinted at. He's not just a mortal man who has studied lore to the point that he can do Cool Stuff, he's basically a demigod figure that - if he misuses his power or uses it too much - allows the Enemy similar free reign in what he can do.

You see this a lot in classical high fantasy literature; sure he could probably have wiped out an orc army but that would give Sauron similar license to cut loose on the Armies of the West. Too much of that stuff and they'd literally break the world.

Now this is very cool in the books but in a game where people expect a great deal more latitude in what they are allowed to do, it doesn't play very well. We're simply ignorant as to the degree of spellcasting ability Galdalf has at his disposal as oppossed to what we see in the canon, which is what he's allowed to do by higher powers. (This is the major flaw in the amazingly silly early D&D article saying that Gandalf is a fifth-level MU). We never get to see what he's actually capable of. Were he not constrained by the higher powers, I suspect he'd be able to do pretty much anything he wanted to do.

Yes, I am aware of this complaints. But I still think my point is valid: You could have a spellcaster that doesn't cast a lot of spells per day/combat/other arbitrary time unit. But if you do, allow him to do something else well enough.

But that doesn't mean is a solution you have to take or that I would suggest as standard for D&D. (Because a primary spellcaster should realy feel like a primary spellcaster.)

 

[GVDammerung]

A few notes -

1st - The notion that D&D must change beyond any need to fix what does not work or works suboptimally because only then can D&D hope to bring in the number of new gamers that can keep the game and the hobby alive is unsupported.

3.0 and 3.5 have not proven so awful or damaged or broken that they are imperiling either D&D or the hobby. There is zero evidence to see a need to radially move away from 3.0 and 3.5 from this gross standpoint.

4.0 has not been widely playtested and vetted as 3.0 was and any market research that might suggest that new gamers will be attracted by 4e's changes is so under the radar that there is little to nothing to empirically suggest it exists. Rather, it seems 4e is Wotc's "hunch" about what gamers will like, old or new. Wotc's hunch is no better than anyone elses hunch who spends an equal amount of time considering the hobby.

2nd - As someone upthread noted, a 3.75 edition could well serve, as well or better than 4e as it is currently understood.

A 3.75 edition could better preserve the existing fanbase by maintaining greater continuity with prior editions while implementing change thought to bring in new fans. As it is, 4e is divisive, and if Wotc goes not get 3rd party publishers what they need when they need it, these divisions may yet grow wider.

A 3.75 edition need not be akin to the tweaking that was the 3.5 edition. It could well be sufficiently distinct to merit a 4.0 designation. Herein it is well to look at other games that go through edition changes with relatively minor changes but which are still judged to be sufficient for new editions by both company and fans. GURPS and CoC jump to mind as implementaing change but maintaining continuity sufficient not to divide the fanbase the way 4e is dividing D&D fans.

3rd - There is every reason to question matters now. Wait while saying nothing and 4e is a fait accompli. It is speak now or you're stuck with a 4e to which you gave up any chance to meaningfully comment.

4th - The whole notion that there is a HUGE audience for paper and pencil RPGs lurking in the mainstream, greater that that which now exists or which existed at 3.0's launch, is unproven at best and more like unto wishful thinking. Paper and pencil RPGs are destined to become model railroading, or board wargaming - once more popular but now popular at a much reduced level. Merely looking at the progress of electronic gaming more than strongly suggests that the pendulum has already swung well away from paper and pencil RPGs and its not going to be swinging back.

That 4e is intended to capture this invisible horde of converts to paper and pencil RPGs is laughable on it face. It is even more laughable that Wotc has what it takes to reach this market. What? They woke up in 2005 and suddenly realized this audience existed and that they could reach it? Hardly. If the audience existed, some evidence of it would have existed heretofore. Right now, that audience is akin to Big Foot sightings. And Wotc (and as successor in interest to TSR, to say nothing of continuing employees) has a track record of lauching RPG after RPG that folds. They wouldn't know mass market appeal if it came up and bit tthem to judge by their RPG track record. NOW, they suddenly have the Holy Grail of RPG design in 4e that will bring in the HUGE new audience and "save" the hobby? Look! Its Big Foot!

The fact is paper and pencil RPGs are past saving, in the sense of wide popularity, even to the level of the mid-1980's. Paper and pencil RPGs core audience is greying and nothing is going to reverse that as younger, potential players have far too many other options that offer as much or more attractions (note I did not say equivalent, as the P&P RPG experience has it unique characteristics).

Wotc should be aiming 4e at the 3X audience because that is nearly the limit of the audience for paper and pencil RPGs. Instead, 4e fixes what's not broken and is alienating/splitting the 3x fan base. This will only hasten paper and pencil RPGs inevitable decline.

If it ain't broke, Wotc should not be trying to fix it. Rather, they should fix only what _is_ broke with 4e. Sure, add some new stuff but not at the expense of so much of what's working just fine. Its not like there is a HUGE untapped audience who will be drawn to 4e. Its the 3X audience. Everything else is Big Foot.

In other words, 4e's audience is the audience for 3X, give or take a de minimis number of gamers. If 4e splits the existing audience, and it is doing so at this point opinion wise, it will do less well than 3x. The pie is finite and it is made up of increasingly grey gamers. If the thought is that 4e will "save" the hobby by bringing in nw blood that is a bigger fantasy than anything in any RPG.

 

[pemerton]

I just noted there is one alternate solution to at will or per encounter spells:
Let Wizards be competent fighters.

Agreed this is another possibility.

 

[WayneLigon]

Wotc's hunch is no better than anyone elses hunch who spends an equal amount of time considering the hobby.

I would think that there are precious few people who have spent as much time 'considering' the hobby than the people whose job it is to create the mainstay of said hobby, so I'd say that their hunch about what people would like would actually be the best of all possible hunches. If I beleived they were just going on a hunch, which I don't.

If it ain't broke, Wotc should not be trying to fix it. Rather, they should fix only what _is_ broke with 4e.

Again, I don't think you've said what you consider broken and what you consider not broken. Don't assume everyone just knows what you're talking about. To my mind, D&D was pretty much born broken and it's been an endless source of frustration to me that we've put up with a lot of it's silliness as long as we have and now, finally, we're starting to break from that. The mere concept of classes is somewhat broken. The spell system as it exists is broken almost in every way possible. I can and do live with and tolerate what we have now in 3.5, but I know it can be done much, much better.

Obviously you feel not much is broken; so what specific things would you fix and what specific things would you leave alone?