Why do I complain about 4E?

[Heselbine]

The OP is very fairly put I think. Of course Hasbro/Wizards will do whatever they think is best for their business. But the designers of 4e are fundamentally game players. No doubt there have been all sorts of tensions inside Wizards between the accountants and the gamers.

3e was a great game and I've had eight years of fun with it. 4e is, for me, a much better game so I'm going with it. That's all I've judged it on, and if Hasbro have some sort of agenda which has resulted in a better game then I see no problem.

 

[vagabundo]

I've been waiting for 4e for years now, I just didnt know it.

I concur with some of the other responses to the OP; he will drive more away than convert.

3e/Pathfinder will have players for a long time, but it is going be around the same proportion that continued to play 2e and before that 1e when the new editions came out.

No amount of "pointing out flaws" will change that and you shouldn't throw stones at 4e when your in a 3e glass house.

On the business side of things, I would have preferred if Paizo moved to 4e, but I can understand their business decisions, for the moment. But Pathfinder is not an answer to the problems with 3e, like others have said, it is a fresh coat of paint, the cracks are still there.

 

[Spatula]

And with the first option (overhauling 3.5), note that I'm not necessarily talking about minor changes such as between 3E and 3.5. It would be entirely possible to keep a new edition looking and feeling like 3.5, but better. Fixed. Consider what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder, and then consider how many more improvements could be made if -- because it's a genuinely new edition -- troublesome math, troublesome spells, troublesome classes, and so on, could be rewritten from the ground up, with no worry about backward compatibility, and with an eye toward future splatbook expansion.

Yes. That would be called 4e.

 

[vagabundo]

I've just been thinking about it Jeff, if we criticise 3e/pathfinder enough will you come to 4e with us???

 

[Spatula]

Because 3.5 is going out of print? Because it's hard to sell a set of adventures to stores when the ruleset for those adventures is no longer available outside of second hand stores and E-bay? Not to mention the poor PR of saying 'To use this product, you need to first go through Ebay and find the 3.5 Rules'

So that's why they are publishing their own book. And given that they are doing that, why not fix some of the glaring bugs with 3.5? What kind of reaction would they get if they just reprinted the SRD?

People who wanted the rules but couldn't get them because they were OOP would have a good reaction to a reprinted SRD, I would guess.

I'm with Whizbang. It makes no sense to say, "We don't like 4e. Here's 3e with a bunch of house rules that make it more like 4e." The 3e diehard audience doesn't want some 3e-4e hybrid, they want 3e.

 

[vagabundo]

People who wanted the rules but couldn't get them because they were OOP would have a good reaction to a reprinted SRD, I would guess.

I'm with Whizbang. It makes no sense to say, "We don't like 4e. Here's 3e with a bunch of house rules that make it more like 4e." The 3e diehard audience doesn't want some 3e-4e hybrid, they want 3e.

I think there is a whole range of 3e guys, pathfinder certain has a lot of diehard fans and supporters.

There seems to be a lot of anger direct at WotC, something to do with shelves full of 3e books that are no longer useful.

I really dont get the anger, if you have played and enjoyed 3e over the years and wish to stay, fine, enjoy. Just dont try and ruin my fun* in choosing a new edition, it is still DnD and, I feel, a better game than the previous edition.

*I have no problem discussing 4e's flaws, I'd like to be aware of problems before my players backstab me with them.

 

[Najo]

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.

1. 3.5 is a pain to prep. All of the math ties into each other for saves, feats, skill points, HD, etc. 4.0 fixes this.

2. Monsters became over complicated and over detailed with features they don't need most of the time. This slows down play. 4.0 fixes this.

3. Dependacy on durations and buff spells as well as a mess of a multiclassing system makes game balance in 3.x a mess as well. 4.0 fixes that.

4. Unnecessarily complicated features like EL, CR, ECL, monster levels, treasure, magic item creation. All fixed in 4.0

5. Running the game advice and tools being easy for a new DM. Not possible with 3.5, very possible with 4.0 game play teaches players to DM. Amazing if you ask me.

6. Skill points making characters not have the right skills at the right level at the right time. 4.0 fixes that, while keeping skill training and differences between characters.

I get that change is scary. I get that 3.5 seemed amazing, and many things about it were. But it had issues. Major issues in the math and learning curve of the game. D&D needed to become easier for new players and DMs while keeping the look, feel and game play of the D&D legacy. WOTC has succeeded by far.

OP, you need to play and run a bit of 4e before you judge it. I think you'll be surprised.

 

[Shadeydm]

Yeeah pretty much a cause's worst enemy can be its supporters.

Yes this is one of my big problems with 4E.

 

[Erekose]

1st ed AD&D could have been just as adaptable, if someone had bothered to write up class descriptions and weapon vs armour tables for a sci-fi game. We could call it D&D-modern. That wouldn't prove that 1st ed AD&D was an exceptional game.

I'd just like to point out that in its day 1E AD&D was (and for many people still is) an exceptional game . . . but I appreciate your point!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yeeah pretty much a cause's worst enemy can be its supporters.

Honestly, I think the 4.0 haters are being closed minded.

Hah hah! Bang.