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

[ironvyper]

The infinite aether of the interweb has enough room for your ridiculous dislikes. Actually, I somewhat curious: with the vitriol you heaved at 4e, I'm interested to know what the big stumbling blocks for you are.

Theres a lot of stuff i dislike but I could deal with or happily handle with a house rule. The couple of things that really broke it for me though and made sure I'll never run a game of 4e are....

The locked in roles. I didnt like how hard it was to make some archetypes early in the 3rd edition before some of the other books. Things like a fighter who became a good general or a rebel rouser leading a popular revolt and winning with brilliant tactics were very hard. They did a lot to fix that though later on in the game.

Now we have locked in roles. Your fighter is always a tank, your rogue will never be anything but a burglar. The wizard finally has some reason to multi-class and he'll never be anything but a neutered blaster.

The multi-classing rules are really a joke and because of that your characters are far too limited in their ability to advance and grow to become your mental image of them.

Level based magic items.... This is so obnoxiously video-gamey i cant deal with it. Its like when you level up in a video game and the new shop becomes available so you have your level appropriate toys now. Its easy enough to house rule out of existence but i dont feel like i should have to have a list of house rules thicker then the PHB to enjoy the game.

The limiting of options. Things like tripping or disarming being class powers instead of combat options. Now if your rogue/burglar wants to sneak in and capture someone he cant trip the bad guy to hold him down and tie him up or disarm the target if they happen to be armed but need to be taken alive. They took so many choices out of the game that it reminds me more then ever of a videogame. I can clearly visualize the little combat menu popping up with my 3 or 4 buttons to choose from and no ability to do anything creative outside of the box.

The class dynamic didnt need to be changed either. A lot of these problems seem to center on them changing it from a game of individuals to a game about a team. When i picture D&D heroes i picture people who are capable, powerful individuals who can stand on their own and win. They work together because its easier or because they like each other, not because if they dont have all the party roles filled they're doomed.

And those kinds of characters, ya know HEROES with capitol letters who can do anything if they try hard enough just dont exist anymore. Now we have people who are more like a swat team that kills monsters, you have snipers and medics and your front line entry team that all work and train together with interlocking tactics to win. And that makes perfect sense in the real world, but its not heroic like fantasy heroes are. Its board gamey like a table top game of Warhammer. Maybe some people are okay with that, but when i want squad based tactical combat i can either play a video game or some actual warhammer. And have a lot less hassle.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Didn't a mod on one of the first pages say "This thread isn't for defending 4e or complaining about 3.5?" Seriously?

 

[fuzzlewump]

Now we have locked in roles. Your fighter is always a tank, your rogue will never be anything but a burglar. The wizard finally has some reason to multi-class and he'll never be anything but a neutered blaster.

You're saying that a fighter in 4th can't be a general or a rebel rouser? Why wouldn't they be able to? Also, it should be said that roles aren't an invention of 4E, the ideal party is the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric. Now the ideal party is the defender, striker, controller and leader. How is designing more classes to fit into these roles a bad thing? 3rd edition designed classes with this in mind, such as the beguiler to meet the needs of a rogue, etc, so where is the negative change?

One more thing, multiclassing allows you to take powers from other classes, so your fighter doesn't always have to be a tank and your rogue doesn't have to be a burglar, not that the rogue really seems to be a burglar in 4E. Before you say, "multiclassing is a joke" explain how taking powers from other classes does not change their role. I mean, a fighter taking arcane powers from a wizard is giving up on tanking powers for arcana. Clearly he is no longer just a tank.

Level based magic items.... This is so obnoxiously video-gamey i cant deal with it. Its like when you level up in a video game and the new shop becomes available so you have your level appropriate toys now. Its easy enough to house rule out of existence but i dont feel like i should have to have a list of house rules thicker then the PHB to enjoy the game.

Not so much, all editions are this way. You can't afford +2 or a +3 weapon until you're higher level. Is it like a new shop comes available that you can buy your toys at when you have the appropriate amount of gold in 3rd edition too? How about 1st and 2nd? Anyway, the levels on the items are purely an abstraction which help the DM out, ignore them and you are left with the gold values like we had in 3rd. No change.

The limiting of options. Things like tripping or disarming being class powers instead of combat options. Now if your rogue/burglar wants to sneak in and capture someone he cant trip the bad guy to hold him down and tie him up or disarm the target if they happen to be armed but need to be taken alive. They took so many choices out of the game that it reminds me more then ever of a videogame. I can clearly visualize the little combat menu popping up with my 3 or 4 buttons to choose from and no ability to do anything creative outside of the box.

Wait, trip the bad guy, hold him down and tie him up? People did this? So trip attempt, grapple attempt, then, like, use rope? Anyway, disarming and tripping were suboptimal unless your character was built specially for it, and when it worked it turned a decent encounter into an absolute push over. But, I respect that you liked trip and disarm but it never worked as well as it sounded in my games.

The class dynamic didnt need to be changed either. A lot of these problems seem to center on them changing it from a game of individuals to a game about a team. When i picture D&D heroes i picture people who are capable, powerful individuals who can stand on their own and win. They work together because its easier or because they like each other, not because if they dont have all the party roles filled they're doomed.

Alright, D&D has always been based around teamwork and cooperation, since 1st edition. Wait, maybe you have it backwards, now that I think about it. The heroes, yes, heroes, of 4E are more stand-alone than ever. They can heal themselves via healing surges and in combat with second wind. Each has a good set of powers for dealing damage, and some utility powers to help all around. No longer is a cleric absolutely required, or a wizard absoutely broken.

I certainly see where your coming from in the limitation of option but honestly if you consider that martial classes before had very little option and now they have to pick 1 out of 4 encounter and daily powers every time they gain them, I think it's around equal if not more.

 

[Aqua Vitae]

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".

Not if, as game master, you specify at the outset that you'll only be using certain rules, or rulebooks. I spend a heck of a lot of time building my own world, and I really don't too much care for marketing analysts out there indirectly trying to inflate it with their fluff by drafting catchy, snazzy, character concepts and forcing my players to spend $30 for it.

I am really probably more liberal than I should be. I just don't think I should be obliged to indulge every single "flavor of the week."

I respect the choice of many players to switch to 4E...or not. I have made my choice in gaming system.

 

[Aqua Vitae]

3.5 works very very very well. The possibilities are nearly endless. So why "fix" it?...answer greed. My wallet is speaking for me.

My wallet spoke twice. I bought the 4E books from my bookstore.

I returned them later, and re-purchased my 3.5 books.

Edit: This is all so disheartening, you know. I remember how elated so many of us were back in 2000/1 upon hearing of the approaching 3E. I've been playing D&D since the mid-1980s, and I don't ever recall immediately returning an entire edition to the bookstore after buying and looking over it.

 

[Felix]

Those who didn't optimize but wanted to play a certain type of character, such as a core bard/core monk took a beating. Those who optimized, losing the original concept in a slew of dipping into classes and prestige classes, ended up being very powerful. Even in the core, there is a wide variance in power, like his bard/monk versus fighter/barbarian example. The fact is that a fighter/barbarian has a much higher chance to defeat monsters of his level than a bard/monk. If you disagree, please give examples.

The fighter/barbarian will trounce the bard/monk in single combat. The bard/monk will trounce the fighter/barbarian when it comes to skills and social interaction. How much one trounces the other will depend how often and what kind of combat encounters you face.

3e made those combinations possible, even if you think it was only giving a player rope to hang himself on. "Options, not restrictions" still resonates for me. Not so much with 4e, I suppose.

 

[Nellisir]

First of all, as others have noted, this isn't a "let's defend 4e thread" or a "let's tell people how their opinions are wrong" thread. There's room for healthy discussion, but this hasn't been it.

You're saying that a fighter in 4th can't be a general or a rebel rouser? Why wouldn't they be able to? Also, it should be said that roles aren't an invention of 4E, the ideal party is the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric. Now the ideal party is the defender, striker, controller and leader.

The core four iconic roles in previous editions of D&D were taken from classic fantasy tropes as portrayed in literature and film. They were thematic elements given a mechanical framework. That's reversed in 4e; here the roles are mechanical, with thematic elements added in. I think it does lock down or restrict the thematic elements a bit, or at least make them kludgier.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yeah, you pretty much ignored his point there. The freedom of 3.5 multiclassing lead to a huge variance in the end result. Those who didn't optimize but wanted to play a certain type of character, such as a core bard/core monk took a beating.

Only if you very narrowly define what is important about a character. If the only thing you care about is who is the biggest combat monster, then sure, the fighter/barbarian is better. But for the ability to do noncombat stuff, the fighter/barbarian is left in the dust.

Those who optimized, losing the original concept in a slew of dipping into classes and prestige classes, ended up being very powerful.

Sometimes, sure. That's the nature of a system that allows for flexibility and choice. I suppose that some people prefer to have their choices made for them in order to prevent them from choosing "poorly". Me, I prefer to have the option to create characters and chooce from a wide variety of possibilities.

Even in the core, there is a wide variance in power, like his bard/monk versus fighter/barbarian example. The fact is that a fighter/barbarian has a much higher chance to defeat monsters of his level than a bard/monk. If you disagree, please give examples.

The fighter/barbarian has a higher chance of defeating a monster of his level in exactly one way: by beating it to death on melee.

The bard/monk has a better chance of defeating a monster via social skills. Or of avoiding the monster with stealth, or by the use of other skills. Or by misdirecting it with illusions. Or controlling it with enchantments. The fighter/barbarian is completely useless for helping his allies after a fight.

 

[Nellisir]

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".

I think it's lame for someone to show up at a game and expect to play whatever they want without checking with the DM.

My rpg library was far, far larger than any of my players' libraries, so I was the one dragging out the esoteric stuff. Players were welcome to draw upon it, subject to my approval. And if someone brought in a book I didn't have, they were welcome to use it -- after they bought me a copy to examine and keep.

Oddly, no one took me up on it.

 

[Hjorimir]

I hate the schism that has been created between 4e and 3e; it is so bad for a hobby that is already in danger of being swept aside to make way for MMORPGs.

That's all I got, cuz' I love everything else.