Why do I complain about 4E?

[Vascant]

I really don't get Pathfinder, myself.

"Hey, they're abandoning the 3.5 audience! Let's make a game that's increasingly incompatible with it ourselves and tout it as an alternative to the other game that's not as compatible with it as we'd like!"

Hooray? New abilities, bucketloads of feats and other changes now mean that Pathfinder itself is the kind of game that Pathfinder was a reaction against.

That's not to say many of the changes aren't a good idea -- nor that I won't immediately snatch up Paizo's gnome sourcebook, when and if there is one -- but "hey, don't go to 4E, go do this other game that's also not 3.5 instead" seems sort of surreal. If I were open to that, I'd be looking at Unisystem and GURPS and Burning Wheel and Savage Worlds and a bunch of other stuff, too.

We are in the same boat here, I enjoy Paizo stuff and purchased almost everything but if I am not jumping to 4e then why would I go to almost 4e. Some of the changes they are suggesting are good (Turning comes to mind) but others I just don't agree with. In case someone wants to know, I have the same opinion of 4e as I love how they do some things and yet do not agree with others.

The thing is this, after 8 years of 3e I have worked out all of the kinks in this edition and now when I make changes it is to improve upon it. So my concern isn't what's wrong with 4e but rather, why change to 4e.

Here is the key though, no matter what edition you play the main idea behind the game is to have fun. I think when you forget that, you aren't playing DnD anymore...

 

[vagabundo]

Here is the key though, no matter what edition you play the main idea behind the game is to have fun. I think when you forget that, you aren't playing DnD anymore...

You'd be playing SnM then (Sadists and Masochists).

 

[WhatGravitas]

We are in the same boat here, I enjoy Paizo stuff and purchased almost everything but if I am not jumping to 4e then why would I go to almost 4e. Some of the changes they are suggesting are good (Turning comes to mind) but others I just don't agree with. In case someone wants to know, I have the same opinion of 4e as I love how they do some things and yet do not agree with others.

Same here. Pathfinder keeps developing into areal turn-off. I understood Paizo's decision *not* to go 4E, and while I like 4E a lot, I intended to keep getting Paizo's modules for conversion.

Now, as Pathfinder becomes less 3.5E, this intent slowly vanishes. I know 3.5E and hence know my way in terms of appropriate conversion - if I have to learn Pathfinder to convert (besides "run with the story" - but I like getting a clue how difficult it is by looking at the levels and so on), a system I never intended to run, I guess I have to pass this up.

Cheers, LT.

 

[med stud]

I don't understand why the OP wants to convert people from 4e? What does it matter to him whether people play 3.5 or 4e? The cat is out of the bag, 3.5 is OOP no matter what happens with 4e.

Critizing something you don't like is understandable, but trying to convert people, "proving" to them that 4e really isn't that great while at the same time telling everyone how good 3.5 is?

 

[Andor]

This reasoning is flawed. When we look at the "adaptability" of 3E, what do we get pointed to? M&M or True20, which are quite different RPGs which just happen to use the same stat range and d20/roll high mechanic. Or Arcana Unearthed and Conan OGL, which are basically D&D with variant settings, new magic systems, and a Fate Point mechanic added to give players a degree of narrative control.

Umm. No. The Adaptability of 3e lies in the breadth of concepts it allows, as well as play style choices.

If I wanted a game where everybody had spell books I could set my class list to Wizards, Achivists, Hex blades, and Spell Thieves (changeing them from spontaneous to prepared casters.)

If I wanted a game where no one had a spell book even simpler.

3e allows me to choose the resources I want to manage. Suppose I want to make a frontline butt-kicker? If I don't want to think about resources I take a Fighter. If I want a once a day boost I can mix in a level of Barbarian. If I want more tactical options I can mix in rogue to give me sneak attack dice. If I want some light spell casting I can take a Paladin, Ranger, or Hexblade. If I want to make spells a big deal I can play a Duskblade, or multi-class and take a gish prestige class. If I want a Powerpoint system I can make a Psywarrior. If I want encounter based abilities I can make a Crusader or Warblade.

If I want to make a spell caster I have control over how many spells I can choose from. I can play a cleric or Mage of the Arcane Order and have access to entire spell lists. I can play a Wizard or Archivist and only need to know what is in my spell books. I can play a Sorcerer or Favored soul and worry only about a small list of spells I can cast spontaneously. Or I can play a Warlock and not worry about spells at all. In other words while 3e contains hundreds of spells the flexible nature of the classes allows me to apply whatever filters I want to that mass of information so I only have to deal with what I can handle. Conversely if I want I can have access to any of those hundreds of spells at the drop of a hat.

Wait.. Am I being unfair to 4e by drawing in all these other books outside of the core 3? No. Because 4e has a mix of at-will, encounter, and daily abilities built into the basis of the class structure. Removing them is like trying to remove the 'one feat every three levels' from the 3e advancment table. If I don't want to play a Vancian caster? Too damm bad. Everybody is a vancian caster now. Even the Fighter and Rogue.

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.

 

[Henry]

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?

Are you confusing Najo with Mouseferatu (Ari Marmell)?

In any case, I think it is over the line to call everyone not switching to 4e "closed-minded", just like it's closed-minded to assume that only pre-teens would have an interest in 4e, and that it's been "dumbed down to a board game."

 

[Toras]

I personally complain about 4e because
1) I personally liked the OGL and much that came from it. Moving away from that does not make me happy even the books were bound with sunshine and flowers.
2)I don't like any of the fluff changes...any of them. At all. That is still ok right?
3)There are a great many mechanics that require me not to think about or ask questions about them as a character, because there are no answers beyond because that is the way it its.
4)I hate battlemats and mini's with a passion, and I was hoping for a step away from that in 4e.
5)I have reasons for being less than pleased with WOTC for how they've treated free-lancers and staff. This isn't a 4e thing, but to say it adds to the irritation and the desire not to give them money assures complaint.


Is it a decent game? Honestly yes, though it is pretty obvious it is not the game for me. Was it what I was hoping for from the next edition of D&D? Not even slightly.

 

[Crothian]

If people want support of 3.5 then talk about 3.5

Aside from Pathfinder and Whiterock. there has been little talk on these boards about the new 3.5 stuff we have seen in the past year. All this negativity is going to do is just frustrate people. I know it frustrates me.

In a couple weeks when I'm with the ENnies for the year I;ll be back running my Third Edition campaign and reviewing third edition books especially the new ones no one talks about. But with this type of attitude from the third edition fans really doesn't make me want to be associated with them. These days when people ask me what type of gamer I am I tell people I run Changeling the Dreaming (which is currently my only game I'm still running). All sides of the current D&D fence has really made it hard to want to be with any of them.

 

[Tsyr]

Mmmm... Changeling...

While I'm strongly anti-4E on a personal level, until recently I've mostly avoided ranting about it... I wanted to see it for myself before coming down on it too hard.

I've never been a "Dungeons and Dragons Brand Gaming" person. I'll play whatever works, I can get other people to play, and suits the games I want to run. Until 4th edition, it just so happened that DnD met all those requirements for many of my games. Now, not so much. I have no emotional investment in DnD such that leaving it is a great injury to me, I can go back to any number of other systems I like, or keep using 3.x, but the one thing that does really rile me is what 4th edition will do to the potential playerbase. Either everyone will adopt it, which I see as bad, because it means other systems will be neglected, or else theres going to be war within the "community" for the next however many years, which is also not good.

So... I dunno.

 

[Breezly]

I do not post much...obviously...but this conversation, and many others like it, reminds me of a religious discussion I had recently. My point in that conversation, is the same as the one I want to make now; and that is, why can't you be happy with your choice without having to put down another? From a religious angle, it is not enough to have your faith, you have to preach to others, go out an knock on doors, and in radical cases, become violent to prove your faith and thus, disprove another.

From the OP perspective, I think I understand. As the 4e ship sails on, you may be left on the dock watching it leave, to one day find that 3.5e does not exist or have the support it needs to maintain it. I guess I can understand that, but given that there are still 1e games going on somewhere, this may not necessarily be so. The fear, and I'll call it that for lack of a better word, is that there will be less and less players/supporting products to draw upon.

For me, 3e pulled me out of the gaming abyss and made me enjoy the game again. For that I am thankful. It was/is a fun game and I will still participate as I can. But, as 3.5e came along, and the flurry of supplements came with it, it became daunting to try and put together characters, and as a DM, plan and prepare for games. I, literally, had a character die because I incorrectly added the BAB bonus for my character with all of the spells, bards, etc. going. It started to really feel like work, more so than it is.

4e, for me, seems much more fun. Much more dynamic and entertaining. I like the miniatures aspect (war-gamer background). I like the new mechanics and the visual feedback I get from them. I have a great imagination, I enjoy creating the stories, but it enhances my game to have these things. Yes, things are very, very different. For me, it hits closer to home at what I enjoy about the game and what makes it fun for me. If it is not this for you, I respect that. I enjoyed 3.5e and I hope that you continue to enjoy. I hope it gets the support it needs to sustain itself. But, I am going to move on to 4e, and having someone (and I am not saying this is you OP) tell me that I am stupid, foolish, fanboy, whatever for doing so is just very short-sighted and narrow. People are different; versions of the game are different. Enjoy them, embrace them, but do you have to belittle someone else who has a different perspective. For many people, their RPG is their 'religion', but I would hope that we all could have faith in what we believe without having to attack someone who is different.

Anyway, I will go back to be deep, dark, lurker corner now...while reading my 4e PHB...