Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
What's Wrong With 4e Simply Put
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cbas_10" data-source="post: 3856723" data-attributes="member: 55767"><p>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.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>The MMO influences that are there to attract that demographic.</strong> 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.</li> </ul><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Simplification of monsters.</strong> 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 <em>why.</em> 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?</li> </ul><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Multiclassing Worries.</strong> 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.</li> </ul><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cbas_10, post: 3856723, member: 55767"] 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. [list][b]The MMO influences that are there to attract that demographic.[/b] 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.[/list] [list][b]Simplification of monsters.[/b] 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 [i]why.[/i] 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?[/list] [list][b]Multiclassing Worries.[/b] 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.[/list] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
What's Wrong With 4e Simply Put
Top