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

[Aqua Vitae]

Yes...

Hi, Turanil.

First of all, I just wanted to say that I read your review of Troll Lords game system, Castles & Crusades. I actually just purchased the PHB and M&T, having downloaded the "condensed" PDF and liked it. I love 3.5, especially its multi-classing system, but I won't be going back to D&D in the foreseeable future.

The 4th edition of the game has left me with a sour taste in my mouth. I have fantasies of sending a Demon Lord to brutally murder fledgling Dragonborn PCs in the most humiliating manner.

Seriously, I find its approach very distasteful.

The artwork, especially the cover artwork, I find sub-standard. I don't like anime-style art for my fantasy games. I was wholly unaware that the being on the cover of the MM was Orcus until I saw the entry.

The mult-classing system is horribly wanting. It's not even a multi-classing system, in fact. It's mult-dabbling. The "fact" that the 3.5 system was broken is not a positive argument for 4E's rules. Who cares if there are some DMs so permissive that they'd allow for a Troll Paladin/Cleric/Knight of the Chalice/Cavalier/Knight Protector? There are IC and OOC mechanisms to prevent abuse, unless you're the sort of DM who sits perfectly quiet, allowing players to pour through every single book, drooling over every new feat or prestige class.

I won't ever be making the journey into 4E.

I am a DM no longer. I...am...a...Castle Keeper!

 

[SSquirrel]

Castles are drafty and watch out for cobwebs. Is Castle Keeper the medieval term for Maid?

I'm sorry, it's late and I have nothing to add. I don't see the art as anime, and I really like that the dragon on the DMG is scrying the characters that appear on the PHB cover. Orcus well...I knew it was him cuz that pic had turned up on the WotC site w/the Orcus preview I think. Never really seen a lot of Orcus art over the years, but thought it was very cool they used him on the cover, knowing how many people have really enjoyed him over the years.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

The mult-classing system is horribly wanting. It's not even a multi-classing system, in fact. It's mult-dabbling. The "fact" that the 3.5 system was broken is not a positive argument for 4E's rules. Who cares if there are some DMs so permissive that they'd allow for a Troll Paladin/Cleric/Knight of the Chalice/Cavalier/Knight Protector? There are IC and OOC mechanisms to prevent abuse, unless you're the sort of DM who sits perfectly quiet, allowing players to pour through every single book, drooling over every new feat or prestige class.

I actually find that character interesting. It's very unlikely (and wholly epic), but PCs epitomize unlikeliness. There's only one in the entire world, and it's a PC. It's not broken, it's "nonstandard". The fact that you want to murder all dragonborn kinda shows your bias in that regard.

3.x multi rules ARE broken. It is a fact, if you want to acknowledge it or not. A bard3/monk4 is the same CR/EL as a barb4/fighter2. Seriously, give me a break.

And if someone spends $30+ on a book it's kind of lame for the DM to just ban everything inside of it. There is a difference between "baninate" and "be a doormat" and "let your players use cool new stuff without actively trying to jack up your game".

 

[rounser]

The fact that you want to murder all dragonborn kinda shows your bias in that regard.

I'm with him on that one. I just look at their ugly mugs in the artwork, think of the cynical, gimmicky, marketing reasons for their presence as a PC race, and want to send them on a one way trip to oblivion.

Imagining them all torn apart by Demogorgon or something I can relate to, but IMO would take too long as opposed to simply snapping them out of existence, and would require humouring the idea that they were there to begin with. I save to disbelieve.

 

[AllisterH]

Um, I do know this is a criticsm thread but I would like to point out something...

Human bandits and guards are generally STRONGER than 1st level PCs (human bandits are 2nd level monsters while guards are 3rd level monsters)

I'm not sure how superheroic 4E PCs could be if they can't beat up the classic bandit with ease.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm with him on that one. I just look at their ugly mugs in the artwork, think of the cynical, gimmicky, marketing reasons for their presence as a PC race, and want to send them on a one way trip to oblivion.

It has never been a good idea to give people what they actually might be interested in...


Imagine they had kept Gnomes:
"Oh, it's all marketing reason! There are so many old-schoolers who would just reject the lack of the Gnomes. They don't care what's good for the game, they only want to take money of the grognards!"

 

[rounser]

It has never been a good idea to give people what they actually might be interested in...

Yeah, well, people are wrong and tasteless on this one, IMO. They really want to play actual dragons anyway, I'd assume, but WOTC decided that the game supporting non-humanoids as PCs would be too hard to support, so we get a compromise with a goofy name and ugly artwork. Or maybe broken 3E half-dragons were popular with munchkins for those breath weapons and massive stat bonuses, and that threw out their surveys.

I'm certain they don't belong in core D&D, though, except in the new paradigm of "everything is core", which is crosseyed as well IMO. They just don't fit. I don't want to imagine them putting up their feet in taverns in my worlds, they'd be run out of town for sneezing and burning up the furniture.

 

[Turanil]

[RANT]
Sorry guys, but too many of the last posts have nothing to do in this thread. This thread is for people explaining what they dislike about 4e, not for fanboys try to tell them they are wrong and should submit to the new faith as everyone else. Or maybe it's time for me to go and troll on raving 4e threads and tell them how wrong they are? Then, if a 4e mod decides to ban me from ENworld definitely, it can't be a bad thing. Times have changed but no way I am going to follow the "new world order".

What I dislike so much about 4e (reading around about it) is that it's obviously intended at milking the customer's wallet, and targets the kids' audience (where everything is equal and you can't die, so playing kid won't cry for mommy). It even borders on deception where it should have been called "Warlords of Dungeoncraft: a new minis game for you kids" rather than just using the D&D name.
[/RANT]

 

[La Bete]

I'm certain they don't belong in core D&D, though, except in the new paradigm of "everything is core", which is crosseyed as well IMO. They just don't fit. I don't want to imagine them putting up their feet in taverns in my worlds, they'd be run out of town for sneezing and burning up the furniture.

I will admit I don't have any great love for them either. In fact, I don't recall anyone in any game I've ever played in wanting to be a dragon-type race. Ever. Certainly most of the homebrews I've run or played in don't have a slot for them (though I suppose they would be ideal in others).

I'm not real burned up about it, but the view that they shouldn't be in core isn't completely unreasonable.

Edit - Turanil, what? Get up on the wrong side of teh bed or something?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

One of the things I dislike about 4e is that I'm not allowed to dislike 4e