Why do I complain about 4E?

[Uzzy]

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.

Firstly, if you are going to spend a whole lot of money on printing new rulebooks, why not spend some time fixing the acknowledged errors, flaws and bugs in the 3.5 Ruleset. The most glaring example would be something like the Grapple rules. Would it be wise for a small company like Paizo to put all that cash in and not fix some of those errors?

Secondly, Paizo are still doing 3.5. All their supplements, adventures etc are using the 3.5 Rules. They will only start using their Pathfinder rules in 2009, after Gencon, when the RPG landscape will look a lot different. 3.5 will have been out of print for over a year. The PHB2 for 4th Edition will have been released, along with a host of and even two campaign settings. Releasing a reprinted SRD to compete with that won't work. But an open beta test, with gamers contributing new ideas that get into the new improved ruleset? That's something that can create a buzz that will hopefully give Paizo a success come 2009.

Thirdly, you're correct that people want 3.5. I know I do. Luckily for me, Paizo is still doing that for a whole other year. That's two whole adventure paths, along with the supporting material. I'll make my decision come 2009, though right now, I want to support Paizo and give them my gaming pounds, as I think they make a superior product and are generally a better and friendlier company.

I don't begrudge those who want to play 4th Edition, and I think the wars between the editions are silly. We're all gamers after all.

 

[vagabundo]

Thirdly, you're correct that people want 3.5. I know I do. Luckily for me, Paizo is still doing that for a whole other year. That's two whole adventure paths, along with the supporting material. I'll make my decision come 2009, though right now, I want to support Paizo and give them my gaming pounds, as I think they make a superior product and are generally a better and friendlier company.

It has never been a better time to be a 3e supporter, there is tonnes of stuff out there and now is the time to buy it up (it will be cheap), enough for you to game for the next 5 years, easily.

I know some people are disappointed that 4e is not more like 3e but fixed, but it is time to move on with that and get on with your gaming.

 

[Uzzy]

Agreed Vagabundo. I've been looking to get the Monster Manuals off E-bay for cheap. Eric Noah said that there's never been a better time not to switch, iirc, and I think that's a very true statement. I've enough 3.5 material to last me for quite some time, and companies are going to keep making it, with Paizo making 3.5 compatable stuff into the next decade.

I'd add that the edition change has also given me the impetus to go out and look at the RPG alternatives that are out there. Spycraft has interested me greatly, and my group and I think it would be a good change from swinging swords.

It's an exciting time to be a gamer. I'll admit that 4th Edition isn't for me, but I'll happily borrow some of the concepts that it uses for my games.

 

[vagabundo]

It's an exciting time to be a gamer. I'll admit that 4th Edition isn't for me, but I'll happily borrow some of the concepts that it uses for my games.

The core books are well worth a good read though. It may give you ideas on fixing the 3e math. Also I find the monsters a lot more interesting, especally solos (BBEGs), which were usually just murdered in 1-2 rounds by my PCs...

Before 4e was announced I had started to create a campaign using E6, free race paragon levels and incantations from the SRD. Even if I stuck with that I'd still grab lots from 4e, they did what I everything I wanted to do with my custom 3e and did it better.

 

[malladin]

Honestly, I think the 4.0 haters are being closed minded.
I get that change is scary.

Hey Ari, your quick enough to condemn the OP for negative attitudes to 4th ed fans, you think this is better or somehow more justified because it's pro 4th ed? All I see is broad insults against an entire group of people who don't agree with the poster, wasn't that your problem with the OP?

 

[Grimstaff]

Hey Ari, your quick enough to condemn the OP for negative attitudes to 4th ed fans, you think this is better or somehow more justified because it's pro 4th ed? All I see is broad insults against an entire group of people who don't agree with the poster, wasn't that your problem with the OP?

Calling out a naysayer is not "pro-4E", its calling out a naysayer. The OP is catching flack for his negativity, not his choice of editions. He has admitted he has an agenda of wanting people to stay with 3.5, so he complains about 4E. In a 4E forum.

If a vegetarian walked into a steakhouse and started ponitificating, he'd be shown the door.

 

[BryonD]

Calling out a naysayer is not "pro-4E", its calling out a naysayer. The OP is catching flack for his negativity, not his choice of editions. He has admitted he has an agenda of wanting people to stay with 3.5, so he complains about 4E. In a 4E forum.

If a vegetarian walked into a steakhouse and started ponitificating, he'd be shown the door.

Nice thought. Except this thread is in General. Last time I checked ENWorld was still for 3X and 4E (as well as prior editions, as desired). If you want to talk about either 3E or 4e specifically, there are subforums for you.

 

[mhensley]

4e fixes the problems of D&D like you would fix a broken leg on a horse.

 

[Imaro]

Hey Ari, your quick enough to condemn the OP for negative attitudes to 4th ed fans, you think this is better or somehow more justified because it's pro 4th ed? All I see is broad insults against an entire group of people who don't agree with the poster, wasn't that your problem with the OP?

This... I don't consider myself a 4e hater, but I'm also not drinking the kool aid as far as a system that has been out for less than a month. I honestly think alot of people did buy 4e unseen, I know I did because I was able to get such a good deal on it. Does that mean I think it's the perfect game system...nope. Way too early in it's life cycle for those type of proclamations (even though I see them on these boards with startling regularity). I say give it some time for the bugs to start popping up (you know like the skill challenge system) before swearing it's better than 3.x.

IMHO 4e is a pretty good game, but so is 3.x and I'm not ready to swear one off for the other. I will say I felt like I got more value for my buck with the 3.5 books than I did with 4e, but this is just my opinion. I think the OP has some valid points and I don't think he was being anymore condescending or insulting than those who liked 4e and jumped into the thread with comments.

As far as the OGL, I'm not too happy about that, as I don't think WotC is the end all and be all when it comes to game design or setting design (otherwise they would have something besides D&D that was a huge success). I think if anything those competing games really forced them to take a long hard look at their own product and in the end lead to better mechanics being implemented faster. As far as setting design goes, I find it funny that I remember arguing with other posters a few months ago that WotC's assessment that the production of various settings being unfeasible was wrong (White Wolf has been doing this since the 90's with their WoD). Well it seems like they realized it as well, but the only setting I was keen on was Planescape (which I now realize will be a different Planescape than the one I loved) or a Greyhawk which all signs point to as not being considered.

I also don't like some of the design choices that do in fact seem geared more towards profit than consumer value with 4e. Such as the increased font size, the short pages in the DM guide vs. it's cost and holding back certain classes and monsters on purpose for future supplements. I'm just not going to spend $30 to get the swordmage class, even though I feel it's something that should have been included in the core since multi-classing is so weak. YMMV of course.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Nice thought. Except this thread is in General. Last time I checked ENWorld was still for 3X and 4E (as well as prior editions, as desired). If you want to talk about either 3E or 4e specifically, there are subforums for you.

This thread is in General. But he's just explaining his motives here. But he might be active elsewhere.

If he is. I honestly don't know at the moment.

And, well, in the end I am not sure if he needs to "catch flak" for this. At least he's telling me his agenda and I am not left speculating to his motives, and can react accordingly.

And I also understand his motives. I am "posting" the "Anti-4E" threads for a similar reason. Though I haven't yet visited a lot of 3E or Pathfinder threads to tell them that the draw-backs of their game system. Though I certainly have a little bit to say about the strengths and weaknesses on Pathfinder, but I hesitate to post much on it. I am a f4nboi, so whose 3.x/Pathfinder fan would care about what I say?