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

[billd91]

I find it interesting that a great deal of the complaints about 4e leveled here are the same ones that a lot of us fans of older editions had about 3e. In fact, I'd say the vast majority are the same. Combat is too clunky. PCs are now nigh-invulnerable superheroes. Magic is too different. Monsters are just bundles of stats. It feels like a video game. Too much arbitrary change.

I don't mock; it's just that it's very interesting. I've got this weird sense of deja vu, I guess.

It's true there were some complaints about that, particularly the nigh-invulnerable superheroes. But I think a lot of those complaints were before people had really tried high-level play with its mercurial potentialities.

 

[Banshee16]

Just prior to the announcment by Paizo that they were sticking with the OGL and 3e ruleset, it seemed to me that every complaint I made about 4e was met by 4e fans telling me they didn't understand why I couldn't just houserule it.

Like rolling hp, then figure out your own charts.
Like alignment, houserule it back in.
Dislike Tieflings and Dragonborn as core races, then houserule them out.
Don't like tall halflings, house rule them at a shorter stature.
Think 200 year old elves dying of old age is dumb, houserule it.

On and on it went until it struck me that any game where I had to ignore every single piece of fluff and change a good portion of the crunch simply was not worth it.

Good point....I kind of feel the same way. 4E isn't devoid of merit....it's just that when I look over the three books, I have to throw so much of it out in order to get to the good stuff, that I'm wondering if it would be better to just cherry pick the stuff I want.

I like the idea of a condition track, and the concept of opposed roles. At least with respect to using skills for social effects (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc.) opposed roles are probably the best.

I like the idea of powers....but in 3E, I can get those out of Tome of Battle.

I also like the idea of the Eladrin and the Feywild....but I've already got "Faeries" from Bastion Press, Van Richten's Guide to the Shadow Fey, and Complete Guide to Fey, and between the three of them, they do what I need anyways.

Even the Dragonborn, in concept, I don't mind...but we've got mechanics for them already.....using the 4E Dragonborn would simply be a matter of applying their fluff to the stats from Races of the Dragon or whatever.

But the video gamey feel? Clerics who aren't spellcasters? Losing all these classes? 200 year old elves? The drastically reduced equipment? The fact that most of the powers for the different classes are very, very close stat-wise, and only differ in their fluff?

I'll admit, leafing through it at the store today, the books look great. They obviously have high production values. But it's evident from the wider margins, the larger type face, and the profusion of huge colour spreads taking up 1.5 pages, and other images taking up such huge segments of the book, that there's far less to it.

People seemed to be receiving it positively at the store. But then, many were just flipping through the books....so maybe they haven't sat down with them and really read them yet.....or, maybe I'm "wrong", in not liking them. Who knows?

Banshee

 

[thedungeondelver]

It's true there were some complaints about that, particularly the nigh-invulnerable superheroes. But I think a lot of those complaints were before people had really tried high-level play with its mercurial potentialities.

About what, about 3e? Understand, I did 3e for quite a while, as well as a d20 WoT game, both to very high level. The superheroness stayed the same or got worse - but that's for another thread. You can email me or PM me if you want to continue. I just don't wanna muck up the 4e thread.

 

[El_Gringo]

So I ran a game earlier this week. I thought everything was going well until the wizard decided to use Magic Missile.

"I rolled a 1. I missed."

"You missed with Magic Missile?"

I think the system is ok and I'll continue running it, but it doesn't feel like D&D.

 

[Nellisir]

I'll admit, leafing through it at the store today, the books look great. They obviously have high production values. But it's evident from the wider margins, the larger type face, and the profusion of huge colour spreads taking up 1.5 pages, and other images taking up such huge segments of the book, that there's far less to it.

People seemed to be receiving it positively at the store. But then, many were just flipping through the books....so maybe they haven't sat down with them and really read them yet.....or, maybe I'm "wrong", in not liking them. Who knows?

I've glanced through the MM and flipped quickly through the DMG (got called away before I could look at the PH), but frankly, the MM bored me. Lists and lists and lists of stats. No descriptions. No environment, habitat, or anything. What exactly is that thing tucked in next to the worg? I went from a certain sale (albeit later this week), to an almost certain non-sale.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I've glanced through the MM and flipped quickly through the DMG (got called away before I could look at the PH), but frankly, the MM bored me. Lists and lists and lists of stats. No descriptions. No environment, habitat, or anything. What exactly is that thing tucked in next to the worg? I went from a certain sale (albeit later this week), to an almost certain non-sale.

Agreement here. I haven't seen such a stark representation of monsters since the OD&D MONSTERS & TREASURES booklet. Except here, it isn't a good thing.

Plus some of the editorial decisions made with regard to the monsters themselves is...questionable.

 

[Nellisir]

I'm curious to hear why folks don't think 4E supports world-building. When I hear the term, I think of political machinations, organizations with conflicting goals, NPC personalities, geographical features, and ancient histories. I think of these sorts of things as being largely independent of the rules.

From my brief skim of the DMG and the MM, I thought world-building would be, if not crushed, at least made more difficult by the near-total lack of environmental information on monsters, and the DMG apparently laying out who runs towns, cities, and etc (ie, towns have an absent noble lord and his local representative is a reeve). I could very well have missed the handy table of alternate styles of government, but I somehow I doubt it.

It just looked harder to "build a world" from the box without knowledge from previous editions or just making your own decisions (all my worgs live in swamps!). I know world-building is supposed to be all about making your own decisions, but it presumes a common language that D&D no longer provides.

 

[Nellisir]

I wonder how unbalanced things would be if one used the racial substitutions as "add ons" vs. "substitutions".
I may read up on that a bit tonight...
Edit - I think the Pathfinder Alpha has benefits for races as they reach certain levels, but I may be misremembering.

They don't, but I had thought that if you give feats every odd level then that leaves 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level open to give characters things that are not dependent on class. I'm working on using the racial levels mixed with some of the continuing racial abilities from the Paizo Dark Sun to give characters racial benefits (I can also use at least the human evolved levels from Arcana Evolved for this purpose).

I've been mulling over the possibilities of "dual-classing" or "dual-tracking" characters so they hypothetically get a class benefit at one level and a race/cultural benefit at the next level. Rinse and repeat.

That said, 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th is still alot of open spaces to play with. Or you could give a racial benefit at every odd level and just make ability score bonuses a racial benefit (one that can't be taken twice in a row, or with a bonus limit of level/4)

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>
It just looked harder to "build a world" from the box without knowledge from previous editions or just making your own decisions (all my worgs live in swamps!). I know world-building is supposed to be all about making your own decisions, but it presumes a common language that D&D no longer provides.

I agree, which is why I made the comment of not being playable out of the box. There really is a lot of interesting stuff here, I just think the designers went "clunk' on too many needed aspects in an effort to force the PoL campaign model. Which, frankly, doesn't appeal to me one iota, it's probably the most broken thing about the system - a free form world for the DM to make his own; you know except for the gods, and the classes, and the interaction of PC and NPCs, and the basics of the setting, and the set-up of the planes, but other than that, its all your baby!

 

[Philodox00]

I don't like the various Magic Armor Types, like "Angel Steel" or "Bloodthread Armor". It really reminds me of my Everquest days. I just prefer "Plate Armor +2" or "Leather Armor +5" and leave it at that. The various additions to the magic armor, leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I also don't like the Marking feature. It really does remind me of on-line gaming, where everyone wanted the "Tank" (or in 4E terms, Defender) to gain hard hitting mob's attention, so he could soak up the damage. In fact, the various "class roles", seem to be taken straight out of on-line gaming thought. Defender? Tank. Striker? Dps. Leader? Buffer. Controler? Crowd Control.

Don't like the shoe horned Path and Destiny. I don't understand why I can't just be a Cleric till level 30? Why do I have to become a Radiant Defender? One thing I appreciated about 3E was that, Prestige Classes were always just an option.

There isn't much Non-Combat development either. I always liked having rules for my Clerics who were History Buffs and Fighters who were weaponsmiths in their spare time. I understand some skills were condensed, which I agree with ( Stealth, Perception and Theivery ) but where are the Craft and Knowledge skills? Why wasn't Intimidate and Bluff condensed into something like "Manipulate"