You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!

[TwoSix]

I don't like it because I am a world builder.

I want a game that is about making a cool world and then using that world to build cool characters in it. 4E, to me, is exactly the opposite. 4E is about building the characters and skewing the rest of the world to fit those characters.

I want a world where a monster is imagined and designed to be exactly whatever the DM sees it as. Not a world where its attack bonus and AC are confined to a range to match its level. Not a world where a monster might be a soldier if you meet it one time and a minion if you meet it another.

I want a world where gauntlets of ogre strength simply make you stronger. Being stronger means being stronger and then you deal with balancing that in the game, or not bothering to balance it, as best fits what is fun to you at the time. I don't want a world where gauntlets of ogre strength are simply as close as you can get to "stronger" within the the math constraints for a encounter expected to include level X items. I don't want anything to be defined by balance. I want everything to be defined by what it is and then have balance work backward from there.

I want a world where magic missle isn't just the wizard's version of a longbow.

I want a game which makes a world where the characters don't matter at all, and then leave it up to the players, including the DM, to make characters that make themselves matter.

And with every fiber of my being, I think you're wrong. The rules of D&D should be about the table experience, nothing else. World-building should be the province of frustrated fanfic writers and SimCity players.

 

[Turanil]

And with every fiber of my being, I think you're wrong. The rules of D&D should be about the table experience, nothing else. World-building should be the province of frustrated fanfic writers and SimCity players.

And with every fiber of my being, I agree with BryonD. Your point of view is just one point of view among others, that I do not share, although I can see its rationale if you are someone who prefers minis games. Insulting other posters is not welcome anyway, plus you are wrong with this last statement (something that I know with every fiber of my being of course...).

Finally, I invite you to read post #108...

 

[gonesailing]

And with every fiber of my being, I think you're wrong. The rules of D&D should be about the table experience, nothing else. World-building should be the province of frustrated fanfic writers and SimCity players.

Ahem...As I read it this thread is FOR the hate, not to defend your own point of view. 'Sides World Building is F.U.N. Fun.

Anyway, I dislike that the change of direction that 4th Edition represents has caused a hopefully temporary rift in the community on this and other forums I lurk on.

 

[Felix]

I forget where I read it, but I had heard that 4e was going to implement a mechanic whereby your race would give you more abilities as you level up, making your choice of race much more relevant at high levels, and making an orc fighter distinct from a similarly built dwarf fighter.

But it turned out not to be the case. And that was the *one* mechanic I was keen on seeing.

And then they went and kicked Vancian magic right in the junk. 4e may be a pretty, well-executed kick in the junk with the best of intentions, but I'm still walking funny.

 

[Plane Sailing]

He's not insulting you in any way. Please stop trolling this thread! These are out opinions, no where in this thread does it say 4th Edition players are wrong with liking 4th ed.

Bringing up something from several pages ago after they've been booted from the thread strikes me as being particularly silly, not to mention bad form.

It also flies in the face of my most recent instructions about this thread. Don't do it.

 

[sckeener]

I dislike that the change of direction that 4th Edition represents has caused a hopefully temporary rift in the community on this and other forums I lurk on.

agreed. I'm tired of all the posture for and against 4e. I'm hoping it'll settle down.

<back to the OP>

What I don't like about 4e...

• it'll be the vista of D&D - change for change
• great wheel toast
• demons being elementals
• summoning and illusions coming later
• monsters and pcs being different...makes it harder for DMs that allow players to play monsters.
• the art work....I've seen some that are good...but the tiefling art...come on...why are they not extinct with those horns? I could see the 'LG' dwarf in Goblins killing all of them just because they might be evil.
• how much change would have to happen to homebrewed settings to support 4e. This is a big one for me since there is one world I've been playing in for 21 years..and there are others in the game who've been playing in it for longer. We've managed to make the change for each edition...but 4e sounds like a different beast.

 

[Plane Sailing]

And with every fiber of my being, I think you're wrong. The rules of D&D should be about the table experience, nothing else. World-building should be the province of frustrated fanfic writers and SimCity players.

I've given two warnings, and I'm losing some patience here.

Banned for 3 days.

 

[Creeping Death]

I forget where I read it, but I had heard that 4e was going to implement a mechanic whereby your race would give you more abilities as you level up, making your choice of race much more relevant at high levels, and making an orc fighter distinct from a similarly built dwarf fighter.

But it turned out not to be the case. And that was the *one* mechanic I was keen on seeing.

I remember this as well and was looking forward to it. I remember that race was going to make a difference for all classes so that an orc wizard was different than a human wizard which would be different than a dwarven wizard, etc. etc.

That's too bad it's not in there. It's just another reason for me to not buy the books. I'm going to have to think about how to do this for 3.xe. Maybe I'll continue to use racial substitution levels or something like that.

 

[Felix]

I'm going to have to think about how to do this for 3.xe. Maybe I'll continue to use racial substitution levels or something like that.

I think the way to do it is give a benefit every 4 levels or so. Nothing too major, and they'd have to be broad enough to appeal to members of every class. Somehow make a higher level dwarf, well, *more* dwarfy.

Perhaps it could reside in the purview of how NPCs react initially?

With 8 PHB races and 11 classes that would find different things appealing, I can see how this mechanic could quickly bog down a pnp rpg for relatively little benefit. But it's still a cool idea.

 

[Banshee16]

What I hate about 4E:

Having people walk up to me and explain to me why 4E sucks without having even heard anything about it.

(I'm not slamming those in this thread, I spend a lot of time at the game shop, and I've had people walk up and explain to me why 4E sucks, and it's apparent they have NO IDEA what they are talking about. And it drives me nuts.)

And if they've read the rules, and still don't like it?

I'm not trying to start an argument. Actually, I had a similar discussion with my players. Based on stuff I was reading on EN World, and previews by WotC and stuff, I expressed concerns. Two of my players said "it actually sounds cool......we like Book of Nine Swords, and everyone gets options like that now"...they brought up that maybe my concerns were because I lacked context in that I didn't have access to the books themselves. Then one of them got the books early, and the first reaction was "cool".....so we went to his place. But by the time everyone had gone through them, reactions had gone decidedly cold, and the group as a whole changed their minds about it, and that we're no longer so hot to change. Discussions changed to how much stuff we still have to do in 3.x.

It seems like lots of people have opinions one way or the other that are sometimes pretty strong. But at least on these boards, naysayers have been criticized as forming opinions based on incomplete information. I remember when 3.0 came out, based on previews, I was pretty interested, but concerned about multiclassing. It took three years of play for WotC to realize multiclassing was flawed, in the same manner I knew based on their previews. I kind of see this the same way.....I think that once the "newness" wears off, many players might not be *as* satisfied with it.

Someone upthread pointed out...maybe part of the problem is that at the end of the day, 3.x really wasn't a bad system. At this point, refinements would tend to be minor. If you blow everything up to build a new system, you better hope you get it right, because it's really easy to get it wrong if you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If lots of people love it, great. I hope they have fun. I just don't think it's really a game tailored to my interests anymore. It feels a little like SAGA Dragonlance, in terms of the overall situation. That was still ostensibly Dragonlance, but it didn't feel the same as it did under D&D rules.

Banshee