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

[resistor]

I've read through a friend's copy of the books, and played in a 4 hour demo today. Here are my thoughts based on those:

- Non-caster at-will powers are silly. When the fighter have five different abilities that all boil down to "I smack him with my sword," the choice between them becomes purely mechanical, not thematic or flavorful. I thought it worked OK for casters where there was signficant variation between the powers, but not for melee oriented classes.
- The entire tiering of at-will, per-encounter, and daily powers reminded me a lot of my MMO-playing days, with skill cooldown etc. In fact, the whole power system reminded me of playing an MMO.
- Aggro as a major concept was and is my least favorite thing in MMOs. Nothing's more boring than playing the character whose only purpose is to get hit.
- I agree with most of the earlier comments about it making world-building harder.
- I HATE the new alignment system. Either keep it as it was, or get rid of it completely (and i'll just add my preferred version, the previous one, back in).
- I really liked the 3e warlock, but the new one is awful. Curses!?
- Warlord. I hated the concept in MMOs too.
- Lack of monster fluff in the MM the worst thing since sliced kobold droppings
- The layout of powers in the PHB reminds me a lot of the manual for the copy of Civilization (2?) that I had a while ago that listed all the techs in the game. Not inherently a bad thing, but the color-coded boxes give me a real computer-game-manual vibe.
- The art is amazingly ugly and poorly used. I strongly dislike the emphasis on broad action shots, and despise the one-and-a-half-page spread format. I prefer more smaller pictures that illustrate individual items, concepts, races, etc. to large ones where I can't tell what's being depicted. Also, I think the general style of the pictures themselves is crappy.

OK, so the last two are superficial, but what can I say? The visual appeal of a product has a non-negligible effect on my liking/disliking of it.

 

[Roman]

I am neither converting to the 4th edition nor am I even planning to buy the rulebooks. I don't like the fact that simulationist concerns were apparently deliberately ignored by the designers and I am also not so keen on wholesale 'reimagining' of D&D flavor to the point that from what I have seen in the previews I wouldn't even consider the game to be D&D any more. I also have a sour aftertaste in my mouth after the terrible marketing campaign. Needless to say, I am not about to reward WotC with my cash for chosing to switch the target audience from my demographic to another.

As such, I am not planning to buy 4th edition products. On top of that, I have no interest in DMing 4th edition campaigns even if somebody were to lend me the books and all my campaigns will remain 3.5E or Pathfinder RPG. If I happen to move somewhere far away and thus lose my existing gaming groups, I guess I would be willing to play in a 4E campaign using somebody else's books. For some reason, 4E offends my DMing sensibilities more than my player sensibilities.

 

[Evilusion]

Well I do not post much, but after reading the new edition of DnD I also have a few gripes. Now do not get me wrong I will try 4e but some things just really stuck me as odd.

1. Classes... They all have about the same hit points, skills and powers. Yea I know there are varations but for me it is close enough that they should have made just one class and allowed you pick your powers.

2. Alignment... I like the old system but the new one, they should have just made good, neutral and evil. Simple and easy. Let the players role play how good, neutral or evil they want to be.

3. Monster Manual.. Yes the whole thing, Please for the love of that is sane stop but odd names to monsters. Just give me Orc not 4 different varations of Orc. Another example is the Visejaw Crocodile all it needs to be is Crocodile. Just give some rules how you advance monsters and I can take it from there.


Evilusion

 

[Raven Crowking]

4e is the edition where Greedo shot first.

 

[La Bete]

4e is the edition where Greedo shot first.

The foulest insult so far! Sir, do you have no shame? Do you finally have no shame?

 

[Imaro]

Aww man... I dissagree... I'd say it goes more like this:

Dude! A lizard with 6 legs! Thats friggin sweet! An it can turn a fool to stone?!?!? Six legged stoney lizard! WORD! I'ma be zappin beotches tonight with this thing!

And the thing is, for a particular style of play that is all you need (mainly dungeoncrawl after dungeoncrawl). But how does it take away from that style if it in fact does describe it? Second what if the PC's want to know specific things (within reason) that do not apply to it's combat prowess or better yet as a new DM you want to base an actual adventure (not just a combat) around the basilisk and are looking for inspiration.... I know make it up, but where is my jump of point? Good thing I've got my previous editions as a place to start with. I mean honestly, IMHO, this book is little more than a collection of DDM cards for the monsters.

 

[Scribble]

And the thing is, for a particular style of play that is all you need (mainly dungeoncrawl after dungeoncrawl). But how does it take away from that style if it in fact does describe it?

Well my comment wasn't really meant to debate the idea of flavor in the MM... I was just commenting on the internal monologue.

But since you asked... it doesn't really, but if you start giving too much, you clutter up the page, and sometimes force an idea on someone.

Second what if the PC's want to know specific things (within reason) that do not apply to it's combat prowess or better yet as a new DM you want to base an actual adventure (not just a combat) around the basilisk and are looking for inspiration.... I know make it up, but where is my jump of point? Good thing I've got my previous editions as a place to start with. I mean honestly, IMHO, this book is little more than a collection of DDM cards for the monsters.

I'm wondering how many people actually read the MM instead of simply skimming through it? There is actually LOADS of info on monsters outside of combat, but it seems like people skim past it because it's preceeded by a skill DC... Maybe people just assume since there's a number there it's obviously combat crunch? I don't know...

True, not ALL of the monsters (I'm lookin at you worg!) have a lot of info, but that's true in almost any edition.

But lets take the Griffon as an example. Here is all the flavor:

GRIFFONS ARE FIERCE, MAJESTIC HUNTERS of the air. They make their nests in remote corners of the world and sometimes stray into the Feywild. There are many kinds of griffons, all of which have feathered wings, a sharp beak, taloned foreclaws, and the hindquarters of some nonflying beast. Griffon eggs are highly prized, for young griffons can be
trained as mounts.

Griffons are difficult to tame, but stories tell of elves and eladrin who magically control griffons and ride them into battle. Hippogriffs, on the other hand, are easily ridden, even in combat. For that reason, they are the most common flying mount among the civilized races of the world.
Hippogriffs breed true. Breeding a hippogriff with a horse produces either another hippogriff or a temperamental horse. Hippogriffs are expensive mounts, so the theft and smuggling of young hippogriffs is a lucrative criminal industry.

A griffon’s nest typically contains only one or two eggs. Griffon and hippogriff eggs are worth up to 1,000 gp apiece to prospective buyers, who include eccentrics wishing to display the creature in captivity, villains who want a vicious guard, or spellcasters who believe they can train a young griffon using magic.

Rimefire griffons are native to the Elemental Chaos. Ice archons ally with them, and efreets sometimes capture them and force them into service.

You can't honestly tell me that's not a decent sized chunk of flavor info.

There's tons of stuff in there to get a DM's mind wondering.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I've read through a friend's copy of the books, and played in a 4 hour demo today. Here are my thoughts based on those:

- Non-caster at-will powers are silly. When the fighter have five different abilities that all boil down to "I smack him with my sword," the choice between them becomes purely mechanical, not thematic or flavorful. I thought it worked OK for casters where there was signficant variation between the powers, but not for melee oriented classes.

Cleaving through your enemies and using a shield bash to throw them back are thematically and mechanically the same?

- Aggro as a major concept was and is my least favorite thing in MMOs. Nothing's more boring than playing the character whose only purpose is to get hit.

So, what does this have to do with 4E? The Fighters purpose seems to hit people that try to ignore him so hard that they reconsider.

- I agree with most of the earlier comments about it making world-building harder.

I know that this comment basically came from one of the designers, but I am still not convinced it is true. I felt a certain "spark of imagination" hitting me when I read the preview books and the core rules. Maybe time will tell if that's actually true.

- I HATE the new alignment system. Either keep it as it was, or get rid of it completely (and i'll just add my preferred version, the previous one, back in).
- I really liked the 3e warlock, but the new one is awful. Curses!?

- Warlord. I hated the concept in MMOs too.

Cool, such classes are already out there? Can you cite a good example (preferably one without monthly cost. I am already paying for a fitness center I barely visit, but definitely should visit more often...)

- Lack of monster fluff in the MM the worst thing since sliced kobold droppings
- The layout of powers in the PHB reminds me a lot of the manual for the copy of Civilization (2?) that I had a while ago that listed all the techs in the game. Not inherently a bad thing, but the color-coded boxes give me a real computer-game-manual vibe.

They still do such manuals? Since the days of Descent 2, I became more and more disappointed in the computer game manuals...
Now, T.F.X, that was a great manual!

 

[thedungeondelver]

4e is the edition where Greedo shot first.

You win forever.

 

[noretoc]

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.

With that said, those are all my arguments about 4e. That, plus it is effectively not D&D any more. Not for me. And I'd still like an explanation why Greyhawk was swept under the rug. I mean, seriously.

I just want to say that my gripe when 3rd came out, was the reliance on magic items and how it got to be more like a video game, with all the buff spells. The only real house rules I have are to reduce the "all adventurers have gauntlets of str/dex/wiz etc so your mage is walking around with 17 str" (eventhough he was built with a 9 str). After playing 3rd for awhile, I found that I could really control this, by limiting magic, and adjusting bad guys.

Well, now here comes fourth, where they kicked it up by five notches and not only have thoes items but turned thoes thing to powers that everyone can have. 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.