-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!
- Thread starter Turanil
- Start date
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Then, I think, it did good. This "sitting on the edge", "do I or do I not" in a decision making process can be stressful.Treebore said:
I usually dislike change, too!
Hmm. Didn't Monte have a blog post on that?
"Changing is bad, Change is good"? The idea is - the process of changing is usually hard and requires a lot of effort. Once the change is completed and things settle down, things are good (or better) again...
Moonshade
First Post
cwhs01 said:
Isn't this all about personal taste? There's no objective way to measure fun. Some people love monks, others are happy their core spot has been claimed by warlords. Some people like the idea that attacks can go so wrong that they have no effect at all, others are thrilled by the possibility that missed attacks still do damage and explain it through the enemy growing tired or losing some of its morale. Some people are bitter over the loss of things they liked about pre-4E D&D, others are prone to bitter rants about things like 3E CoDzilla and fill threads with their partying over changes to spellcasting (because no sane person could possibly have liked resource management or enjoyed playing low-level mages - and if they say they did, it's alright to accuse them of being powergaming wizardlovers whose badwrongfun has to have screwed over the other PCs in their group). If someone thinks it's a problem monks aren't playable, I don't need an essay that details the monk contribution to D&D and the player's fun-filled sessions playing the class in order to accept that monks not being in the core three could be a legitimate problem to that gamer.
Hopefully people will also explain why doing away with a particular sacred cow is good, instead of just talking about how gamers fear change. Sharks hit upon a winning formula how many millions of years ago and they're still around even as other species have evolved and fallen, so change can reveal itself to be progress towards you being screwed over instead of solidifying or increasing your odds of survival.
cwhs01
First Post
Your post was actually a lot more helpful than a short list of "things i dislike".
It doesn't have to be a ten page essay on the merits of a particular Feat in 3e as opposed to its 4e equivalent. But a few thoughts as to WHY one dislikes a particular thing in 4e is alot better than just a remark that it is badwrongfun.
Badwrongfun comments are unhelpful regardless of which edition they are being used against.
It doesn't have to be a ten page essay on the merits of a particular Feat in 3e as opposed to its 4e equivalent. But a few thoughts as to WHY one dislikes a particular thing in 4e is alot better than just a remark that it is badwrongfun.
Badwrongfun comments are unhelpful regardless of which edition they are being used against.
Moonshade said:
cwhs01
First Post
My own (short) list and a few comments.
The marketing of 4e: WoTC has been very open in pointing out what they perceived as flaws in earlier editions. This ofcourse alienated and upset people who saw these as not bugs but features. Good examples are alignment, Great Wheel cosmology, Spellcasters being superior to non-spellcasters at high levels.
They could have done a better job of not antagonizing people, but stressing that 4e is a new game with new design considerations. 3e is a good game, 4e is also a good game, but have changed a few formerly sacred cows to facilitate gameplay for all charactertypes.
Backwards compatibility is mostly gone: 3e crunch is very different from 4e, meaning that alot of money invested in 3e books is wasted if one wants to move to exclusively playing the new edition. Some fluff may be salvaged wholesale. A lot is outdated.
Gamism at the cost of "realism" (per a suitable definition of realism, as it was defined by the 3e ruleset): Jury's out on this one. I think it might be a better game, but there will be arguments and discussions about things such as HP, Encounter and daily powers. I think and hope it will be okay, once one accepts it and learn not to think to hard about fantasy...
Simplification of the skillsystem: Love it and hate it. Like that non-adventurer relevant skills have been left to fluff and background descriptions, dislike the loss of skillpoints/ranks, and that ALL skills advance with levelgain.
Minor nitpicks: I have no minor nitpicks. It's a new edition with changes to the base math that necesitates changes to alot of things including, spells, feats and skills.
The marketing of 4e: WoTC has been very open in pointing out what they perceived as flaws in earlier editions. This ofcourse alienated and upset people who saw these as not bugs but features. Good examples are alignment, Great Wheel cosmology, Spellcasters being superior to non-spellcasters at high levels.
They could have done a better job of not antagonizing people, but stressing that 4e is a new game with new design considerations. 3e is a good game, 4e is also a good game, but have changed a few formerly sacred cows to facilitate gameplay for all charactertypes.
Backwards compatibility is mostly gone: 3e crunch is very different from 4e, meaning that alot of money invested in 3e books is wasted if one wants to move to exclusively playing the new edition. Some fluff may be salvaged wholesale. A lot is outdated.
Gamism at the cost of "realism" (per a suitable definition of realism, as it was defined by the 3e ruleset): Jury's out on this one. I think it might be a better game, but there will be arguments and discussions about things such as HP, Encounter and daily powers. I think and hope it will be okay, once one accepts it and learn not to think to hard about fantasy...
Simplification of the skillsystem: Love it and hate it. Like that non-adventurer relevant skills have been left to fluff and background descriptions, dislike the loss of skillpoints/ranks, and that ALL skills advance with levelgain.
Minor nitpicks: I have no minor nitpicks. It's a new edition with changes to the base math that necesitates changes to alot of things including, spells, feats and skills.
To further explain myself, I'll respond without quoting everything cwhs01 wrote:
--Invisibility: Never had to be "sustained" in any previous edition. Doing so now doesn't add to the game, make it neater, more streamlined or whatever. It just nerfs a good combat/utility spell. Now its a level 6 "power" and it takes a standard action to sustain. Improved Invisibility sustains with a minor and that's 16th level--and it still ends when the invis person attacks so its not as Improved as 2e and 3e Improved.
--Power Attack: And? And no more getting to calculate how much BAB to trade off for damage. And in a game where a "4th level" dragon has more HP than a party of 10th level characters (as an example), being able to do that extra damage can come in pretty handy!
--Damage on a miss: Nope, actual misses. Whiff...bam! Plenty of examples.
--No Monks: This is a problem, not exclusive to Monks but including all other "core" classes not included; barbarian, bard, sorcerer, etc.. And its a problem precisely because they are NOT there. The choice is not there.
--Spells/Rituals: These are powers. Spells stopped being spells when they stopped "casting" them. Now they just happen. No chance of disruption, no more casting defensively. And at will Magic Missiles (just one example) is now a power, it also stopped being a spell when you can do it an unlimited number of times per day--at 1st level!
--Everyone...powers: To sloppily quote from the Incredibles, "If everyone is special, then no one is." Call it exploits, or spells, if that makes you happy, whatever you need to try and bring a fantasy (not superhero) feel back to the game, but they went in the wrong direction with this stuff. Everyone can, more or less, do about the same thing, there's just a different power source labeled to it and slightly different fluff.
--Dwarves: Actually, its against Large and bigger enemies. And for 3 previous editions its been +4 to AC and they didn't have to spend a feat to get it. If you were a Dwarf, a Giant had to work at squashing you. Now, the Dwarf has to take a feat to get a bonus that doesn't even come close to mitigating a Giant's attack bonus. While not "sacred cow" material, it is classic. Its just Dodge for Dwarves, and that isn't even around anymore.
--Wizards: Say what? Why is it bad that WIZARDS are not the masters of the arcane anymore? Why is it bad their spells suck? Why would someone want to become a wizard just to get sucky spells? The point of Wizards is cool spells--getting to do what no one, or relatively few, other people can do. Not getting to do what the Fighter and Ranger can do, but having to wear a dress while doing it.
Extending this to all classes, there is no compelling reason anymore to play one class over another. They all basically do about the same amount of damage at just about every level and have virtually no differences outside of combat beyond what they can wear. It just depends on whether you want to do that damage by weapon or some kind of energy. Sure, Wizards can Fly for...1 round, but a Fighter can drink a potion and doesn't need to be 16th or 19th level do to it!
Despite the semi-sarcastic tone, there is no bitterness here, instead it is immense disappointment. I've played D&D through all its editions, having started off with my first red and blue boxes when I was seven or eight and this is the first time I've been disappointed with the game. This doesn't have the FEEL of D&D. Instead I find myself looking for the slot on my books for the quarters to go into.
One more thing: Group play. This edition is designed for a group and a group of different classes. 3e went that way, but with tweaking only on the monsters the DM threw at you, it could easily be played solo. 1e and 2e had no such thing as this almost mandatory group design. You could play solo or in a group. You could play in a group of dwarf fighters, whatever, and you wouldn't be at any great disadvantage over a group of mixed races and classes.
Here its designed for practically one of each race and class in a group, and you can't solo unless its considerably weaker monsters. Any 3e character, same race/class, is much more powerful in combat than a 4e character. Allowing for 4e 30 levels supposed to be the same scale as 3e 20 levels too. You put a 6th level 3e fighter against a 9th level 4e fighter and that 3e will out damage and out fight him!
4e is pretty much a watered down version of D&D. A Junior edition if you will! "Here kid, play this 4e until you're ready to step up to the major leagues and play 1e or 2e or 3e!" Ha! "You think your snazzy 21st level 4e Magic Missile is something doing 4d6 damage? Wait til you see all the dice you gotta roll for your Grandpa's 21st level 1e Magic Missile! Now THAT is a Magic Missile!"
--Invisibility: Never had to be "sustained" in any previous edition. Doing so now doesn't add to the game, make it neater, more streamlined or whatever. It just nerfs a good combat/utility spell. Now its a level 6 "power" and it takes a standard action to sustain. Improved Invisibility sustains with a minor and that's 16th level--and it still ends when the invis person attacks so its not as Improved as 2e and 3e Improved.
--Power Attack: And? And no more getting to calculate how much BAB to trade off for damage. And in a game where a "4th level" dragon has more HP than a party of 10th level characters (as an example), being able to do that extra damage can come in pretty handy!
--Damage on a miss: Nope, actual misses. Whiff...bam! Plenty of examples.
--No Monks: This is a problem, not exclusive to Monks but including all other "core" classes not included; barbarian, bard, sorcerer, etc.. And its a problem precisely because they are NOT there. The choice is not there.
--Spells/Rituals: These are powers. Spells stopped being spells when they stopped "casting" them. Now they just happen. No chance of disruption, no more casting defensively. And at will Magic Missiles (just one example) is now a power, it also stopped being a spell when you can do it an unlimited number of times per day--at 1st level!
--Everyone...powers: To sloppily quote from the Incredibles, "If everyone is special, then no one is." Call it exploits, or spells, if that makes you happy, whatever you need to try and bring a fantasy (not superhero) feel back to the game, but they went in the wrong direction with this stuff. Everyone can, more or less, do about the same thing, there's just a different power source labeled to it and slightly different fluff.
--Dwarves: Actually, its against Large and bigger enemies. And for 3 previous editions its been +4 to AC and they didn't have to spend a feat to get it. If you were a Dwarf, a Giant had to work at squashing you. Now, the Dwarf has to take a feat to get a bonus that doesn't even come close to mitigating a Giant's attack bonus. While not "sacred cow" material, it is classic. Its just Dodge for Dwarves, and that isn't even around anymore.
--Wizards: Say what? Why is it bad that WIZARDS are not the masters of the arcane anymore? Why is it bad their spells suck? Why would someone want to become a wizard just to get sucky spells? The point of Wizards is cool spells--getting to do what no one, or relatively few, other people can do. Not getting to do what the Fighter and Ranger can do, but having to wear a dress while doing it.
Extending this to all classes, there is no compelling reason anymore to play one class over another. They all basically do about the same amount of damage at just about every level and have virtually no differences outside of combat beyond what they can wear. It just depends on whether you want to do that damage by weapon or some kind of energy. Sure, Wizards can Fly for...1 round, but a Fighter can drink a potion and doesn't need to be 16th or 19th level do to it!
Despite the semi-sarcastic tone, there is no bitterness here, instead it is immense disappointment. I've played D&D through all its editions, having started off with my first red and blue boxes when I was seven or eight and this is the first time I've been disappointed with the game. This doesn't have the FEEL of D&D. Instead I find myself looking for the slot on my books for the quarters to go into.
One more thing: Group play. This edition is designed for a group and a group of different classes. 3e went that way, but with tweaking only on the monsters the DM threw at you, it could easily be played solo. 1e and 2e had no such thing as this almost mandatory group design. You could play solo or in a group. You could play in a group of dwarf fighters, whatever, and you wouldn't be at any great disadvantage over a group of mixed races and classes.
Here its designed for practically one of each race and class in a group, and you can't solo unless its considerably weaker monsters. Any 3e character, same race/class, is much more powerful in combat than a 4e character. Allowing for 4e 30 levels supposed to be the same scale as 3e 20 levels too. You put a 6th level 3e fighter against a 9th level 4e fighter and that 3e will out damage and out fight him!
4e is pretty much a watered down version of D&D. A Junior edition if you will! "Here kid, play this 4e until you're ready to step up to the major leagues and play 1e or 2e or 3e!" Ha! "You think your snazzy 21st level 4e Magic Missile is something doing 4d6 damage? Wait til you see all the dice you gotta roll for your Grandpa's 21st level 1e Magic Missile! Now THAT is a Magic Missile!"
Fifth Element
Legend
I dispute 2 of these 3 claims. If they were all true, this thread would not exist.Turanil said:
Ahnehnois
First Post
For so long, we've been waiting for a magic system that works. More generic, less powerful, an simpler spellcasters. The new magic system works much better than any of the previous ones. The problem is, fighters use it to. And rogues. This unified system of "powers" sounds great, but it kills one of the most fundamental aspects of D&D: the dichotomy of the normal people and the magical ones.
Similar Threads
