Why do I complain about 4E?

[Imaro]

Oh.

Well, that's obvious: play what you like.

But it seems like the OP, and the various edition wars, is "No! You shouldn't like what you do, you should like MINE! Cuz yours sucks." The OP said as much: he wants people realize 4e sucks and return to play 3.5.

Hey, you want to play 3e, fine by me. Post about 3e, play 3e, rub those 3e books all over your naked body.

But, I won't go into your 3e threads and yell at you for playing your game, or why I converted, in hopes of getting you to jump ship, so why should 3e players do the opposite?

Man, the thread is in General, not 4e. And it never was a 4e thread, you can choose to read it and to respond to it... or you can choose not to. I don't think the title is misleading. For the record I have the 4e books am willing to play it but I ain't declaring it better than anything until it gets put through it's paces for more than two weeks.

 

[Rechan]

Man, the thread is in General, not 4e. And it never was a 4e thread, you can choose to read it and to respond to it...

Except that this thread is "Why I complain about 4e", so it's about 4e, and the OP's intention of trying to convert people by complaining about 4e. And where else is he going to complain about 4e, but in 4e threads? If he's doing it in 3e threads, he's preaching to the choir.

And, aside from a rules and houserules forum, there isn't a "4e general forum".

 

[IanB]

Except that this thread is "Why I complain about 4e", so it's about 4e, and the OP's intention of trying to convert people by complaining about 4e. And where else is he going to complain about 4e, but in 4e threads? If he's doing it in 3e threads, he's preaching to the choir.

And, aside from a rules and houserules forum, there isn't a "4e general forum".

Yeah, there is no 4e general forum, but that doesn't appear to have stopped people filling up the rules forum with non-rules issues. The sooner the rules forum gets back to Mistwell arguing with Hypersmurf, the more right the universe will feel.

 

[Greg K]

Honestly, I think the 4.0 haters are being closed minded. 3.5 has major flaws and 4.0 fixes them. The need for 4.0 is not just to close the OGL, its was to strengthen D&D and get back to its heart..

No, its not fear or close mindedness. 3e may not have been perfect (and it isn't) . However, give me the core three books, Unearthed Arcana ( action points, weapon groups, specialist wizard abilities, class variants, death and dying, spontaneous divine casting), the Book of Iron Might (for maneuvers and stunts), Element's of Magic (Revised or Mythic Earth) and the Artificer's Handbook (Mystic Eye Games) and I can happily run a game that I feel is better than 4e will ever be. The only real major change would be the magic system.

Granted, I would use the Psychic's Handbook, Shaman's Handbook, and Witch's Handbook Advanced Bestiary, MM2, and Fiend Folio, and I would still want class based defense, removing level loss, and fixing the problems with saves bonuses for multiclassing. However, the books I mentioned initially, would give me the core game I desire without having to make any major changes outside of replacing the magic system. Ans EOM would tone down spellcasters while providing spellcasters flexability and simulating the fantasy I like (both of which per encounter/daily fails to do while being unfun, imo).


Do I think 4e does some things, yes. I like many racial abilities made feats (something I have been wanted done for a long time). I also like second wind and passive perception scores- and will adapt it to my game. To a degree, I like how characters get a defense score, but dislike the implementation. However, it introduced so much more that I don't like as a DM or player. Among the things that I don't like:

- per encounter/daily powers and combat abilities.
- paladin divine challenge
- marking in general
- the classes. I don't want to play any of them under the new rules.
- condensed skills
- how daily items work
- paragon paths and epic destinies. Granted, I generally dislike PrCs and often prefer the use racial or cultural class variants (or on occassion a new class like Green Ronin's Shaman or Witch), but at least PrCs are intended to be completely optional.
- the healing system
- I still wouldn't want to play a high level game.
- exception based NPC and Monster design. I agree that keeping track of every skill point and feat can be a pain in 3x (honestly, I never do it). However, I think the designers went way too far. Some monsters have abilities that players should be able to do, but can't by the rules until the combat supplement comes out. Some monsters with similar abilities don't work the same(from what I have heard elsewhere).

- Then, we still have the handwaiving of what hit points mean only worse. Hit points used to in part represent physical damage, now they are not at all. Hits are not not necessarily hits and misses still do damage from fatigue/morale loss, but hp loss does not cause any fatigue or exhaustion (which would have made the inclusion of Second Wind something cool) and a certain humanoid that can impale a pc and drag them around the battlefield.

Imo, a better game than 4e could have been designed from what was out there already. All or most of the things, you might consider cool about 4e. I don't. It is just more stuff that will detract from my enjoyment of the game and , since most of them will come up routinely, I 'd rather not have to deal with.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, there is no 4e general forum, but that doesn't appear to have stopped people filling up the rules forum with non-rules issues.

That's because, until recently, the front page of ENWorld pointed to the Rules forum with a link that just said "4E." It's since been changed.

 

[Hussar]

How do you make a Totemist in 4e? Or a Binder? Two of the most widely praised and flavorful classes in 3e and they can't be done in 4e by the very structure of the system. Because 4e doesn't do 'flexible' it does niche protection, and has no room for other options when it comes to power selection.

You... would have trouble making a binder in 4e? Ummm what? You realize that the Warlock is pretty much the Binder with a new coat of paint? Right down to having pacts and all. Making a binder in 4e is incredibly easy.

Having played a binder for the past year and a half, I know how easy it would be to convert my character to 4e. Heck, we know that the binder was the source of inspiration for the mechanics of the Warlock.

----- back on topic -------

I think the problem has become, like with 3e, those who argue system become so entrenched in their positions that they cannot possibly move from them. It's become the same edition wars, just with funny glasses and a mustache. We see, from both sides, I'm most certainly not exonerating either side here, the same tired, vague criticisms and defenses being passed back and forth. Frequently almost word for word.

I 100% agree with Crothian on this. If you want to proselytize your edition of choice, do so. Do so without comparing it to another edition if at all possible. Talk about what you really like about the system. All the negativity just makes for reactionism.

 

[Hairfoot]

Oh, I've evaluated 4e. I've looked at it. Hell, I see some choices which were done solely for marketing choices.

And you know what? I don't care. Because among other things, D&D must stay relevant or it will disappear except for a few pockets of older gamers.

I agree with that, but my fear is that with 4E, D&D is modernising itself out of relevance. If a 12-year-old picks up 4E today , he or she will know the game and its RPG tradition as a complicated, rules-heavy miniature wargame which his/her PC can run without all the finicky sheets of paper and number-crunching.

I don't want the grand old dame to go down in history as a try-hard computer game emulator.

 

[SSquirrel]

Hey, you want to play 3e, fine by me. Post about 3e, play 3e, rub those 3e books all over your naked body.

Just don't film and post it. We don't wanna see it. Really. This goes for ALL of you!!

Rule 1: Do not talk about Fight Club
Rule 2: Do not talk about Fight Club
Rule 3: Rub 3E books on your naked body alone in the privacy of your own home where no witnesses can be harmed.

No, its not fear or close mindedness. 3e may not have been perfect (and it isn't) . However, give me the core three books, Unearthed Arcana ( action points, weapon groups, specialist wizard abilities, class variants, death and dying, spontaneous divine casting), the Book of Iron Might (for maneuvers and stunts), Element's of Magic (Revised or Mythic Earth) and the Artificer's Handbook (Mystic Eye Games) and I can happily run a game that I feel is better than 4e will ever be. The only real major change would be the magic system.

Congratulations. That only took 7 books by 4 different companies. Who can do it in 6 by 3?

 

[Greg K]

Congratulations. That only took 7 books by 4 different companies. Who can do it in 6 by 3?

And, yet all those things were pretty much already done by WOTC except the maneuver system from BOIM. Even, the only major change, the skill/feat magic system, had been basically been done by WOTC for another game. The rest are refining tweaks or add ons and don't discard basically the entire existing game.

 

[Campbell]

IMO a better game than 4e could have been designed from what was out there already. All or most of the things, you might consider cool about 4e. I don't. It is just more stuff that will detract from my enjoyment of the game and , since most of them will come up routinely, I 'd rather not have to deal with.

I think this passage says all that needs to be said. People obviously have different tastes. I honestly don't think there could be any sort of compromise strategy that would work for people like me who think 4e hits all the right notes and people like you that want a revision of 3e that is even more like 3e.