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

[billd91]

Subscription model - which encourages leaving out iconic critters/classes or races in initial offerings to encourage purchase of later release
Druids not coming along until later in the "subscription"
Lions, most bears, tigers, pegasi apparently not coming along until later in "subscription"
Nobody ever just stabs anyone anymore, it's all POWERS
Short to minimal durations on effects
Side-effects of powers that affect one chosen ally (if the radiant power illuminates the target, why does that help only one person?)
Minions rules, which work for other games, are poorly adapted here
Aggro
Half the main PC races in core have Cha bonus - (are they really all more personably/ have stronger personalities than Joe Genero?)
Lack of daily life skills
Ability to heal full hit points, without help, 2+ times per day
Opponents/rewards built not based on some internally consistent rule for the creature/hoard but based on level of party

 

[Gallo22]

I really don't know what to say that hasn't already been said, such as 3.X being a very good game already, having plenty of books/resources to keep me busy til I die, loss of iconic D&D ways (gnomes, druids, spells, etc, the list is endless), lack of feel to the new system. I could go on and on, but as we know us 3.Xers are all wrong.

I just have to laugh inside a little bit about all the complaining that was done over the past year about what's wrong with 3.X (most of which is fixed with a simple house rule, I think we have 1 page of house rules that EASILY fixes 90% of the complaints/grips I've read in the threads) and now there is already a dozen or more threads about how to change, fix or home rule stuff for 4th Edition. I think that's funny!

(sarcasim) I also love being told by the 4th edition lovers (even before the books were released) that 4th edition was the new coming of rpgs, yet at the same time if you stated 3.X was "just fine for me", you were off you rocker.

Anyways, back to my 3.X books. I can't wait to pick up more of them in the cheapo bins or on the web for cheap!!!

Oh, one more thing - DITTO on pretty much everything written before me!!

 

[Castellan]

Minions dying from a stubbed toe.

You know, I didn't think I'd like this, but I can see some value in it. Yes, on some level, it's kinda dumb -- let's face it, a 16th level minion with 1 hp is really silly, but I understand the basic concept behind it.

Pcs regenerating.

Yes. Bad idea.

Tieflings, Dragonborn as core, but gnomes, halforcs are not.

I never, ever liked half-orcs as a PC race. I always thought it was goofy. Especially because you've got elves and half-elves, so why not at least let the PCs play orcs (i.e. have it in the core rules)? I didn't disallow half-orcs in my games, but I very strongly suggested any other race.

Now, Dragonborn? Ugh... Completely arbitrary. Even if I someday adopt 4e (not likely) the Dragonborn will be banned from my game. If I'm playing a Planescape game, the Tieflings are OK, but otherwise, they're out, too.

Casters that never run out of spells.

When this ability is rare, or each player has one unique "always available" ability, I think it's OK. This was taking it too far.

Stupid striker, defender, cc crap.
Marks and aggro.

QFT. This is not -- and never should be -- considered a MMORPG.

Too many hit points.
No rolling for hit points.
Rolling for stats is optional.

Any time you take die rolls away from PC generation, I think it's bad. Let's face it: Chuck Norris and Jack Bauer do not have the same base hit points with only a variance based on Con bonus. It makes the game too "clinical." Randomly-generated monsters that the PCs fight can have the average hit points listed in the MM, but that's it. I would never do that to the players. The possibility for greatness or the lack thereof is a good thing.

That extends into the "too many hit points" comment. It's OK for 1st level players to fear death. Really. I know it sucks. I had a specially-designed bard in a recent campaign who died at 1st level. It sucked, because I had really worked hard on his personality, and was looking forward to playing him through a long career. I could also drive home from work this evening and be hit by a truck and killed. Sometimes, PCs die. It sucks. It's part of life in D&D just like reality.

Warlords as healers?
Damage is fatigue, morale, etc, but restored by a healing surge.

Agreed. This is silliness.

Misses do damage.

Yeah. I'd like some of what the design team was smoking. I want my players to succeed, but wouldn't it have been easier to publish one 4e core book that simply said, "If you're a player running a Player Character, You Win!!!"?

Alignment system raped.

I've read some explanations for this, but it still makes no sense. I grew up with the BECMI D&D rules, so the Law-Chaos axis makes sense even without the Good-Evil. But the lop-sided alignment chart that exists now (and what the heck is "unaligned?" Seriously, does PC have to mean Politically Correct in D&D, too?) is dumb.

Teleporting at first level.

This, along with so many other elements of 4e exemplifies one of my biggest beefs with this version of the game.

In previous versions of the game, it was possible for characters to experience the heights of success and the depths of failure. It was possible (though unlikely) to roll a character with amazing stats, hit points, and to have a brilliant in-game career. It was equally possible to roll a character who couldn't life a toothpick or form cogent sentences. Most players would experience a game that fell somewhere into the hump of the bell curve and experience a somewhat average life with spikes of success and failure (not unlike real life, I would assume).

Now, however, it feels as if the game designers lopped off the shallow ends of that bell curve and left us with only the hump. It's a world of averages, with average players (I'm just as good as everyone else, gosh darn it!), average monsters, and average world mechanics, all doing average things. It's sterile, and boring, with villains being identified only by a red outline around their avatars so the players know who to beat up.

It's just not for me.... Oh, and my biggest complaint about the whole thing... If my dungeon group is running from the Hobgoblin King (who we thought we could take on, but didn't count on him having his demonic mistress for aid) and we run through a door, and discover we're out of spikes, I don't want the wizard saying, "Listen, chaps. Can you sort of distract that fellow for about 10 minutes while I Wizard Lock this door? It won't take a second... Well, once the ritual is done, anyway."

*sigh*

Now... you kids get off my lawn!

 

[Deuce Traveler]

Ubermensch 1st level characters.
Video game feel.

 

[Dice4Hire]

The only thing I hate about 4E is the fact I do not have it yet.

 

[Fester]

1) The overwhelming reason for me not going to 4.0 is simply the amount of 3.5 stuff I have sitting on my shelf. I'd like to run the adventures and use the source books I own.

2) I like the 3.5 rule set. I just haven't experienced the same problems that others seem to have. There are issues, of course. But there will be in any edition - including 4th.

3) WotC marketing. Don't market your new game by telling me that I've been buying a bunch of crap these past years. That's really insulting. Sure, tell me how much better you think the new game will be, but not how much of a schmuck I've been for purchasing the existing one.

4) Fanboyism. Their hat of d02 know no limit. Yawn. Their aggressive and, all too often, childish diatribe against all things 3ed really put me off the new edition. It felt like the target audience for 4ed was much younger than previous editions.

5) The subscription model. It's cynical.

6) The 4ed ruleset just doesn't appeal. It's not fantasy as I like to play it.

 

[Ginnel]

Broken feat/monster race/weapons
stupid new PC races
a change in the spell system
the coinage changing
Monsters changing
Healing changing
Core classes changing
changing the way a whole power system works

Oh hang on which edition am I talking about

 

[ExploderWizard]

Based on what has been discussed and previewed it looks like a tactical miniatures game with roleplying guidelines tacked on. It might be a very fun mini game but not what I would likely run an actual campaign with.

Overall it appears that every aspect of the game has been blunted and rounded for the safety of all who play. Having anything interesting or cool happen in combat that cannot be expressed ultimately by the mindless ablation of hit points seems impossible. Damage seems to have been scaled way down and hit points way up in an effort to drag out a fight. I believe this will ultimately make for long combats where the players don't feel like they are getting anywhere. Effects which could immobilize, transform, or outright kill a monster or character have been condemmed as "unfun". If I were playing a mighty wizard and cast my most potent spells against a pitifully weak enemy who could shrug it off with a coin toss then I most certainly would find that unfun.

The subscription model is also very annoying. Nowhere is this more apparent than the magic item selection. WOW one item of a given level per "slot" and all of them as devoid of flavor as day-old chewing gum. You can add your own at the risk of adding a "game breaking" item because you actually added an item that DOES something.

 

[Knightfall]

• The new alignment system is not for me.
• Gnomes not being in the PHB. Half-orcs too, but that one doesn't bother me as much.
• Leaving out key core classes and adding in new ones that really should be follow up classes.
• Changes to the core cosmology that destroys D&D canon.
• Having to buy a PHB II, DMG II, MM II, etc. I don't mind buying new books, but I hate having to buy them to get what I need for my game. (Anger!)
• Magic item creation changed and nerfed.
• Characters and monsters are not created in a parallel way. This was one of the great innovations of 3.x, IMO.
• New combat ssytem feels to much like a wargame, not an RPG.
• No negative stat modifers for races.
• No rolling for hit points.

 

[WarlockLord]

First, I'd like to start by saying I will probably buy the new edition, mainly so as to play "stupid player races" (no LA drow cough cough)/ However, I see truth in many of these points. The subscription model, the non-lethal combat (It's like RUNESCAPE! MOST BORING MMORPG EVER!!!), the fanboyz ("4e will replace sex" was the official line the day it was announced), the 1 hp minions (Grark broke a nail! Oh noes!).

I don't know if anyone else has this peeve, but it seems like they are also trying to shove spell/ability flavor done your throat. Gone are the days of signature magic missile. I don't need a perfect description of my character's spells appearance, because I enjoy making up signature spells.

Also, rituals. I like the concept, but must every non-combat spell be a ritual?

EDIT: Also, I hate the death of flexibility in the name of the great god Balance (I guess illusions won't be make your own image anymore. Can't pinpoint the source though). And, most of the stuff that has always (to my knowledge) been in the D&D core rules, such as necromancy and illusion, isn't here because it might do something that the fighter can't and hurt his little feelings. Summoning isn't here...considering that mythological origins of magic are summoning, this is just...wrong. Most of the interesting abilities have been nerfed or altered. I will buy 4e to give it a fair chance, and I do like some things, but I have a lot of grievances I hope WoTC fixes in some of their next books.