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

[Pinotage]

Noe instead of normal people growing and learning about the world around them, and earning thier place, we have the justice league right out of the womb. Instant gratification. Apparently that is what people want these day though. They don't want to struggle and earn thier power, they want to be given it from the get go.

This is one of the things that I've been wondering about with regard to 4e. 4e is very 'heroic'. Gone are the ordinary people growing up and learning to fight and becoming heroes. This is about kicking the bad guy right from the start. It's also very fantastical. Magical powers have unlimited use, etc. You can't model worlds like Lord of the Rings with a game system that relies on superheroes. I guess I don't like the idea that 4e can't be low magic.

Pinotage

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You can't model worlds like Lord of the Rings with a game system that relies on superheroes. I guess I don't like the idea that 4e can't be low magic.

Pinotage

You can. But don't use the D&D arcane or divine classes. That's also true for 3E. Gandalf never fires a magic missile or a fireball. Nor does he Summon Monsters, cast Dispel Magic, Invisibility or Enlarge Person. He might also not be a "mage" in the first place, considering his heritage, but he still looks and feels like a mage. But whatever he is, D&D seems to fail at modelling him with the traditional rules. 4E and Unearthed Arcana (3e) at least have rituals/incantations that might allow you to replicate the feel.

The martial classes work fine for LotR, at least Aragon, Legolas, Gimli and others. They don't work so well for the Hobbits - but did any of the Hobbits give you the feeling they had any of the following abilities:
- Sneak Attack
- Heavy Armor Proficiency
- Any of the fighter bonus feats like Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Dodge?

Maybe I should be sad that 4E didn't "improve" on that.
But honestly, I don't feel so. Running a kind of "0"-level character is fun maybe once. But I wouldn't do it more often. And it's not neccessarily a nice play experience either. If you'd model LotR, you either have a vast power discrepancy between different PCs, or you had the PCs accomponied by DMPCs that take all the spot-light and rescue the Hobbit PCs. The reverse might work a lot better (and does in 4E) - the Hobbits are NPCs (possibly minions?) they have to protect, starting as kind of follower and slowly turning into cohorts. And maybe at some point, you'd "spin off" the groups and have the PCs run the former NPCs as fully fledged (lower level) PCs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

D&D is a game in which one of the main aims of play is to find and use magic items. Most people enjoy the finding bit - if you play D&D, you like a good combat - but what is added to the play experience by the identification requirement?

Say instead that D&D is a game in which one of the main aims of play is discovery in a danger-rich environment, and the question answers itself. Identification includes additional discovery, as well as additional danger. It also helps to make magic seem "magical" (i.e., the word "occult" means "hidden", not "overt").

RC

EDIT: BTW, what happened to all the mod comments about this being a thread to complain about 4e, rather than to defend it? I understand that some folks are really happy with the new edition, but my understanding is that there are other threads for pro-4e feelings, or to defend the Greedo-Shooting-First that is 4e.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You can. But don't use the D&D arcane or divine classes. That's also true for 3E. Gandalf never fires a magic missile or a fireball.

In fact, Gandalf casts both fireballs and lightning bolts in The Hobbit, though you could claim the fireball was the druidic produce flame instead.

 

[Agamon]

The hobbits on LotR weren't PCs. Who wants to play some that lets everyone else fight, nearly die or get kidknapped when you do try to fight, etc?

Who says PCs have always been super heroes? Let me tell you, it sure is easier to have a PC with an interesting background, whereas before, if you were a battle-hardened soldier in older D&D versions, level 1 made little sense.

PCs are meant to be important and leaders in whatever it is they did or do. D&D is meant to be a heoric game, and the designers have said from day one that they were extending the sweet spot, which they did quite well.

That said, I'll miss low level incompetence. I always found low levels in D&D fun to DM and play. But I have no problems with 4e's way of handling this.

OTOH, one thing I hate about 4e: it's release has all but crippled this site...

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

As would be expected I really do not like 4e.

I had initially hoped it would clarify and improve things. But instead it has changed the game so much it no longer resembles D&D. Calling a pile of crap a rose does not make it other than what it is, the symbol is not the thing. The thing that has the label 4e D&D on it is very different fantasy game using the label and goodwill to foist itself on people as something it is not. It's not a bad game but they should have released it as a different game instead of pretending it's D&D.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The hobbits on LotR weren't PCs. Who wants to play some that lets everyone else fight, nearly die or get kidknapped when you do try to fight, etc?

Who says PCs have always been super heroes? Let me tell you, it sure is easier to have a PC with an interesting background, whereas before, if you were a battle-hardened soldier in older D&D versions, level 1 made little sense.

If you're starting at level one, you aren't a battle-hardened soldier. That's how the game works.

You say "Hey, DM, I want to make an experienced veteran." Then when he says "Well, we're starting at level one," you say "Ok, nevermind, that character wouldn't really make sense. I'll make a new one."

Now, if the DM said "That's cool, we're starting at level 7," you'd say "Righteous, my character concept works."

But if the character doesn't work, it doesn't work. Complaining you can't be a battle-hardened veteran at level one is about as logical (or illogical) as complaining that you can't be a half-beholder rogue. Sometimes, your character concept doesn't work. That's not a flaw in the game.

 

[The Little Raven]

If you're starting at level one, you aren't a battle-hardened soldier. That's how the game works.

The funny part about this claim is the level-title given to 1st-level fighters back in 1st edition: Veteran.

 

[Banshee16]

The funny part about this claim is the level-title given to 1st-level fighters back in 1st edition: Veteran.

I don't understand the complaint.....I've heard it before as well. Even a 1st lvl Fighter is still better than most of the commoner classes. A 2nd level Fighter, even, would be equivalent to highly trained shock troops.

Banshee

 

[billd91]

The funny part about this claim is the level-title given to 1st-level fighters back in 1st edition: Veteran.

Well, when you consider everyone who wasn't a leveled character class was a 0-level character... yes, a 1st level fighter was a comparative veteran.