Why I'm done with 4e

[Emirikol]

Hey, I finished with 4E too this year. Switched to WFRP..now we'll see what the new edition brings. I'm getting to that point in my life where I'm wondering why I still play RPG's when all the action is in boardgames and video games...

jh

 

[Celtavian]

I've been a player in a 4e campaign since the release of the edition. Prior to that, I DM'd and played extensively in a series of 3.x campaigns. I have tried to adapt to the new system (for the sake of my friend who DMs it), but I can't keep playing 4e; the game itself is driving me crazy.

I don't think 3.x is perfect. High-level encounters, for instance, can be very complicated. But 3.x is superior to 4e in these ways:

* The rules are in the background. The rules are not constantly superimposing themselves on my in-game experience. Example: 4e marking.

Completely agree. And would add some powers like Come and Get It make no sense when dealing with things like mindless undead or oozes. But some how these creatures respond to insults and taunts. There is no sense of individualized race that lent some believability to monsters.

Then there is power repetition. That really kills your game experience by superimposing the rules. The same encounter powers every fight whether they are needed or not is like throwing ice water on me as a DM. I find it astounding that anyone can defend encounter powers as a rules that easily work into the background.

I prefer the paradigm that powers are built upon in previous editions. That allows characters to ramp for a big fight while not overusing powers. Encounter powers require a DM to make up ridiculous reasons why they work every fight regardless of circumstance.

* High level of player creativity in character design. This only increased as new 3.x materials were released. 4e suffers from "sameyness" from the PHB onward.

This is by design. 4E uses the same model for every type of class and every single prestige class.

* Vancian magic. I prefer it. It's part of D&D's core identity. 3e honors it (while giving some options for other paths); 4e pays lip service to it (for wizards, anyway) but essentially reinvents the magic system, to its detriment.

I like it better too. Rituals were a good idea. But they were so limiting that they proved useless in battle situations.

* 4e has a very artificial feel. The labels/roles are a big part of that; striker, artillery, leader, minion ... where is the mystery and wonder? The rules encourage metagame thinking and take me out of the game-world and into wargamer mode.

I would say it makes you feel limited. All the games are artificial. But the roles were the same regardless of what class you chose with very little to differentiate say a paladin from a fighter save for a different main statistic.

I want to play a game of D&D that emphasizes a blend of role-playing, story-telling, exploration, adventure, and yes, exciting combat. I would venture a guess that most of the folks on this forum want the same, though arguably in different proportions. So I want a game system that allows me to do that with minimal intrusiveness. I don't want to feel like I'm playing a boardgame or MMO. For these reasons, I'm starting a pathfinder campaign.

My friends all are hardcore WoW players as am I. They all feel 4E is far more like an MMORPG than an RPG. Sure, it isn't exactly like WoW. But it is very much like an MMORPG in terms of gameplay and character design.

All these folkings pointing out how it is different don't want to point out the similaririties and they are many.

The roles are like an MMORPG. With no feasible multiclass capability, you will not see much deviation from the class roles.

Tank: This is your fighter and paladins. They hold aggro, which is very MMORPG like.

Damage Dealer: These are your strikers. In WoW every class that isn't a tank or healer is a damage dealer.

Healer: These are your leaders. They heal and keep the party up. Luckily in D&D 4E they get to throw down a bit to too.

Controller: This is more a subfunction of many classes in WoW. The only comparable MMORPG class I can think of is the Enchanter from Everquest.

Solos are an example of raid bosses. Weak ones albeit, but still an example of raid bosses.

Elites are straight out of WoW.

It's obvious that 4E was designed with the MMORPG market in mind. The previous rulesets were not friendly to MMORPG design. This new ruleset should be friendly for MMORPG design while keeping enough of their tabletop gaming base to keep the community lively I imagine.

I gotta admit I'd play an MMORPG based on 4E character design. All those powers and abilities would look pretty interesting brought graphically to life whereas bringing to life 3.x or prior editions of DnD in an MMORPG would be very difficult.

 

[nightwyrm]

I know we just went through Halloween and all, but shouldn't threads that died for more than a month get locked to keep it from getting necro'ed.

 

[FireLance]

Then there is power repetition. That really kills your game experience by superimposing the rules. The same encounter powers every fight whether they are needed or not is like throwing ice water on me as a DM. I find it astounding that anyone can defend encounter powers as a rules that easily work into the background.

I prefer the paradigm that powers are built upon in previous editions. That allows characters to ramp for a big fight while not overusing powers. Encounter powers require a DM to make up ridiculous reasons why they work every fight regardless of circumstance.

I think that's painting all the power sources with a broad brush. I can understand why some might feel this way for martial powers, but for divine and arcane powers? The wizard and the cleric cast the same spells or use the same prayers each encounter because they are able to prepare them again after a short rest. The only difference from previous editions is how long you have to rest before you can regain at least some of your spells or prayers (5 minutes vs 8 hours).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think that's painting all the power sources with a broad brush. I can understand why some might feel this way for martial powers, but for divine and arcane powers? The wizard and the cleric cast the same spells or use the same prayers each encounter because they are able to prepare them again after a short rest. The only difference from previous editions is how long you have to rest before you can regain at least some of your spells or prayers (5 minutes vs 8 hours).

yea, and having X number of encounter powers is much worse then 'attack' or 'full attack' right

 

[Nightson]

I have had no trouble ever explaining encounter powers.

Sometimes Come and Get It can be a taunt that makes enemies charge them.

Sometimes Come and Get It is the fighter standing to block the enemies access to his friends, leading no choice but to attack him.

Sometimes Come and Get It is the fighter faking an opening causing the opponents to rush forward trying to finish him off.

Sometimes Come and Get It is the nothing more then all the enemies deciding to attack the fighter and him smashing them.

Combat is abstract.

Sure I've run into trouble with descriptions before. Like how a bolt of acid knocks a creature unconscious without killing it. I generally see that as more of a challenge then an road block.

(Acid examples. Shock of a hit that causes surface damage. Shock from a serious wound (should you feel like inflicting one). The fumes. Sprayed with small specks of acid, which cause excruciating pain.)

 

[avin]

My friends all are hardcore WoW players as am I. They all feel 4E is far more like an MMORPG than an RPG. Sure, it isn't exactly like WoW. But it is very much like an MMORPG in terms of gameplay and character design.

All these folkings pointing out how it is different don't want to point out the similaririties and they are many.

The roles are like an MMORPG. With no feasible multiclass capability, you will not see much deviation from the class roles.

Tank: This is your fighter and paladins. They hold aggro, which is very MMORPG like.

Damage Dealer: These are your strikers. In WoW every class that isn't a tank or healer is a damage dealer.

Healer: These are your leaders. They heal and keep the party up. Luckily in D&D 4E they get to throw down a bit to too.

Controller: This is more a subfunction of many classes in WoW. The only comparable MMORPG class I can think of is the Enchanter from Everquest.

Solos are an example of raid bosses. Weak ones albeit, but still an example of raid bosses.

Elites are straight out of WoW.

It's obvious that 4E was designed with the MMORPG market in mind. The previous rulesets were not friendly to MMORPG design. This new ruleset should be friendly for MMORPG design while keeping enough of their tabletop gaming base to keep the community lively I imagine.

I gotta admit I'd play an MMORPG based on 4E character design. All those powers and abilities would look pretty interesting brought graphically to life whereas bringing to life 3.x or prior editions of DnD in an MMORPG would be very difficult.

How would you adapt 4E to a MMO? How would you deal with interrupts if latency makes Warrior's charge stop yards from the enemy and, only after 5 years, they are fixing Rogue's vanish? As a Hardcore Wow player you can't see how hard would it be to implement the heavily turn based 4E compares to 3.5 to a MMO, unless is turn based...?


4E took roles and stuff from Wow but it don't play like Wow. It plays like Final Fantasy tactics.



We're necroing "Wow is 4E" again...?

 

[resistor]

How would you adapt 4E to a MMO? How would you deal with interrupts if latency makes Warrior's charge stop yards from the enemy

Eh, that's not really a new problem. When I played Guild Wars, hammer warriors could cause knockdown pretty easily, and it was entirely possible for an enemy to start moving away, only to be knocked down a moment later thanks to lag.

Also, Mesmers in GW are a pretty good examples of an MMO controller.

 

[BryonD]

I have had no trouble ever explaining encounter powers.

Pop quiz role playing. The mechanics tell you what happens and you invent a justification.

My preference is that you decide what you want to do and the mechanics simulate the outcome.

It has nothing to do with trouble. It is just a question of whether it is more fun for the mechanics to control the narrative, or the narrative to control the mechanics.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

We're necroing "Wow is 4E" again...?

On a necro'd page, at that!

If he mentioned the class necromancer, or necromancy and how it relates to 4e, we'd be set up perfectly.