This is really making me appreciate 4e

Maybe I'm not alone?  I've been reminiscing about 3.5 since I heard about these upcoming playtests and since getting the platest rules and remembering all the things I don't like about 4e I'm really starting to appreciate 4e again.

I do plan to fire up a playtest and contribute my feedback but I think I truly appreciate what they did with 4e a lot more now and understand how hard it must have been as well as how hard it must be hearing people make claims such as not being able to roleplay in 4e (which is just plain silly since the roleplay is always player and DM driven not combat rulesets)...  maybe I'm not alone? 

Nope, not alone.

I was a slow convert from 3.5e/Pathfinder to 4e, but after going from 4e back to 3.5e, I didn't like it anywhere near as much as I remembered liking it.

In 2e/3e/Pathfinder there are some elements I absolutely loathe, in 4e there are some elements I wish were tweaked, or different, but there's nothing I really hate.

Reading the play test I'm really wishing WotC would continue to support and develop 4e instead of throwing it under the bus and running away...
"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium


Nope, not alone.

I was a slow convert from 3.5e/Pathfinder to 4e, but after going from 4e back to 3.5e, I didn't like it anywhere near as much as I remembered liking it.

In 2e/3e/Pathfinder there are some elements I absolutely loathe, in 4e there are some elements I wish were tweaked, or different, but there's nothing I really hate.

Reading the play test I'm really wishing WotC would continue to support and develop 4e instead of throwing it under the bus and running away...



Yeah, since thinking on this I really wish WoTC would continue with 4e as well.
You are not alone at all, Matt.  I actually came to these forums to look for a place to ask WotC WHY do we need a 5th edition?  I've played D&D since the "Blue" Box (predecesor to the legendary "Red" box), from the late 70's, and I think that 4th edition is the most approachable of any iteration I've ever seen.  Sure, some things aren't as cool or sexy as previous editions, but I've never seen so many new players being turned on to D&D as I've ever seen in this edition, and that's so impressive and yet unstated by most bloggers.  So, no, not alone at all, man.  
 
The playtest material isn't making me appreciate 4e more.  However, I do notice things that have a 4e feel to them.  Most notably, this includes the long rest, the power-like attacks (though the fighter is behind the curve for the moment), and the way HP are determined.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Not alone. They managed to make a better version of 3.5, with some stremlined things à la AD&D and some dumbed down versions of 4E rules' framework.

But it plays too much like 3.5, and I'm not going back.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
I'm not sure I'm appreciating 4e more (you can't appreciate it more if it's already your favorite edition of D&D, and I've played most of them, dating back to the BECMI sets), but I'm definitely not seeing anything that will sway me away from 4e.

I'm thus far not particularly feeling D&D Next. It's OK, but they haven't shown me much that's better than what I have in 4e, and a lot of it is worse. That's fine, though; even if they reveal stuff from 5e that blows me out of the water later on, my group has no plans of switching from 4e for the forseeable future; at least until 5e releases enough books to be a mature edition.

And if 5e never blows me away, that's fine, too. I could stick with 4e forever and won't feel like WotC is ruining D&D or any of the ridiculous accusations 3.x players made when 4e was released.
Most definitly not alone OP!

After an hour or so checking out the playtest materials, I realized that 4th may just end up being the last edition for me, and this is coming from someone with the original boxed sets (red to black!) still in his attick.

It seems like every single page has something to annoy me, and it's something I thought dead and buried when 4th came out!
Maybe I'm not alone?  I've been reminiscing about 3.5 since I heard about these upcoming playtests and since getting the platest rules and remembering all the things I don't like about 4e I'm really starting to appreciate 4e again.



You are not alone !
I play D&D since 30 years (nearly continous) and I saw each new edition as an improvement over the
previous one. I still think 4e has some fundamental flaws (money - hitpoints - level scaling).
But they should have gone forward from there not backwards.

And I can't help - I never liked vancian casting.

Not alone, not at all ...
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
After an hour or so checking out the playtest materials, I realized that 4th may just end up being the last edition for me, and this is coming from someone with the original boxed sets (red to black!) still in his attick.

It seems like every single page has something to annoy me, and it's something I thought dead and buried when 4th came out!




This is just the opening of the playtest, so we may see more changes to come--though I'd guess they'll be tweaks and nothing close to a "major" design element change is likely.

So, while I will reserve full judgment until this path comes to its end, like you I've all the previous editions within reach (or downstairs in boxes) and--at the moment--my initial impression is that IF this were the final product (and it's not) then I would not be sufficiently interested to pursue playing 5e or purchasing anything related to it.

I quite enjoy 4e, I've got Pathfinder and all the prior D&D editions, and--again, for now--I'm not experiencing that "gotta have it" feeling towards 5e.

And, fwiw, I have always loathed Vancian magic, Spells per Day and 8hr rests...
"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

4e-style things are coming.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I play D&D since 30 years (nearly continous) and I saw each new edition as an improvement over the previous one. I still think 4e has some fundamental flaws (money - hitpoints - level scaling). But they should have gone forward from there not backwards.

And I can't help - I never liked vancian casting.



After playing all D&D editions, I was (naively) hoping 4e would be the basis for 5e, and that they'd tweak and improve it, not simply abandon 4e (almost) entirely to return to dead editions as their new game's basis.

It's ironic in a way--to appeal to the Old School Gamers, those who wouldn't give up their AD&D/2e books and games, they're designing a new 5th edition that seems likely to create 4e New School Gamers who will refuse to move into 5e and will, instead, stick with 4e even when it becomes the dead edition...

"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Same feeling here. To be fair, there is one thing in 4e that I hate: Skill Challenges. Great idea, bad implementation. I tried to house rule a fix for it since day 1, and now I just gave up and pretend that this mechanic do not exist. 


Let's wait and see how this playtest will run out in practice. We must remember that 4e PH1 is a pain to read, but works fine on the table. Maybe we see fewer options on the character sheet, but on the table it spread to be more open-ended. I don't know yet. 


What I miss on the playtest document is something that tell me "hey, this is a new edition because of X". 2e was Thac0. 3e was feats, and 4e was powers. There is nothing new on DDN till far. 

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 

In some ways, this is making me re-evaluate 4e.

4e is by far my preferred edition of D&D. It did away with everything I hated about 3.x (particularly the quadratic caster problem, reliance on magical healing, the 15-minute workday and nightmarish DM prep).

Some other stuff about 4e I liked but am not truly wedded to (AEDU for all classes, healing surges being 1/4 max hp).

Some 4e stuff I disliked (the complicated management of conditions and the duration of combats).

D&D Next looks like it might address some of my complaints (duration of combat), include some of the things I love (limited non-magical healing), and may throw some of them under the bus (non-magic healers?). It's completely unknown at this stage what if anything Next will do to address quadratic wizards and nightmarish DM prep.

Edit: Just noticed that disadvantage replaces Opportunity Attacks. That, IMO, is brilliant!

Only time will tell, but for now I plan to stay with 4e.

There are many aspects of 4th edition I appriciate a great deal, but I personally feel that D&D has grown very stagnet in its design, stuck in ideologies that have never worked in any edition of D&D.  


For example I'm not suprised that we are once again revisiting hit points.  This has always been a broken abstraction in D&D that makes absolutly no sense even with heavy abstracted and vague rationalization.  It should have been abandoned years ago but in 4th edition the problem was made worse through its "higher" scaling, creating an even less belivable mechanic that requires even more rationalization.  Healing surges furthered the problem by creating zero distinction between superficial injury and real injury.  In short under the 4th edition system, you have no idea what your status is.  4th edition has often been called "MMO" like and I think hit points and healing surges are one of the contributing factors to this perception as hit points are nothing more than an arbitrary (narrative-less) health bar that means nothing until its empty.

Some great concepts like "powers" in place of traditional RPG "rules of the game" approach was a really good idea.  But I always felt the timing of the whole system was off.  The concept of At-Will, Encounter and Daily powers was just too much of an abstraction and it wasn't grounded in anything that could be rationalized or narrated without some serious stretching.  I can only use this combat manuver once per day?  Why?  How in the world does a certain type of cleave attack only possible once per day?  It just makes no sense.  There should be some sort of resource managing these powers and they should be usable as often as you like as long as you have that resource.. call it endurance or energy or something that can be manipulated through player decesion.  This arbitrary "once every so often" just never made sense.  A simple recharge like they have in WFRP makes this kind of system so much more interesting and dynamic.


Things like the elimination of spells (memorization) was a long time coming and Im glad they did get rid of it but again because it works exactly like combat powers without any differentiation and because the effects of spells are no more or less diverse, dynamic or even distinguishable from other ranged and melee powers makes magic dull and without any real direction.  Its just another way to acomplish the same types of effects.  They really should have made "magic" a seperate system with its own boundries and resources to manage and it definitly needs to be more dynamic.  For all its flaws the 3.5 magic system was superior in that at least it was more creative and interesting.  Sure it was ubalanced.. some might even say out right broken, but at least it was unique and felt like it was a magic system.  4th edition effectively eliminate magic from the game through its merger with other powers, making it just "another power" without much differentiation.


I also felt that the elimination of player coordinated dependency was a strange move especially since the whole game was characterized by archtypes.  4th edition had horrible class based limitations, while simultanously being aggressively abstract in its approach allowing players to pretty much rationalize the use of any skill for any purpose, putting pressure on the GM to define the rules of the game world on the fly since they where so poorly defined by the rule set itself.  Im all for abstraction, but 4th edition was as abstract as it was vague in how role-playing fit into the rule set and as such we get the endless complaints that 4th edition is not a role-playing game.  This is where it stems from.  Role-players want definition, those that don't can ignore the definitions, but if you don't add them for those that do, you have effectively created a system with missing features.


Really in as a whole I think that was the problem with 4th edition.  It was a game created for a very select type of GM/player.  If you where not that type of player the system offered nothing for you.  D&D is a broad franchise for a broad audiance, hence it should have been designed that way.  We know this is a fact, because the design philosphy for 5th edition is attempting to do exactly that and I think its fair to say if it wasn't broken, than there would be no reason to fix it.  Clearly the designers feel that it needs fixing and at the very least its a confirmation that the many people that tried and didn't like 4th edition where right about its missing elements.

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

http://www.gamersdungeon.net/

What I miss on the playtest document is something that tell me "hey, this is a new edition because of X". 2e was Thac0. 3e was feats, and 4e was powers. There is nothing new on DDN till far. 


So far, 5e feels like Final Fantasy 9 to me - a chemical mixture of previously established elements that is meant to feel familiar to all fans of the series. The only surprise for me was realizing how bored I felt reading over the materials. =/
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.

So far, 5e feels like Final Fantasy 9 to me - a chemical mixture of previously established elements that is meant to feel familiar to all fans of the series.


FF9 had new tech around: Active Time Events (aka, press select to see a paralel history) and Trance (which worked diferently from 6, 7, and 8 Limit Breaks). But that is me being technical. I think you hit the nail. 


This "gather and mix" aproach may be great for long-time fans, and curious new to-be-fans. I think the average player will just look at it, recognize some old thing, laugh for remembering it, and them play the game as a stand-alone because there is a limit at how many times you can find the same thing funny. 

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 

Edit: Just noticed that disadvantage replaces Opportunity Attacks. That, IMO, is brilliant!

Ok, I got confused on the OA issue. How does having disadvantage replace OAs?

I, for one, will not miss 4th Ed a bit. I bought it when it came out, tried several times to play it and like it, and ultimately couldn't.

I like my RPG games with some RP in them. I know I'm saying that a lot, but it's true. 4th Edition just felt like it was built for people who wanted to roll dice and run from combat to combat.

It's ironic in a way--to appeal to the Old School Gamers, those who wouldn't give up their AD&D/2e books and games, they're designing a new 5th edition that seems likely to create 4e New School Gamers who will refuse to move into 5e and will, instead, stick with 4e even when it becomes the dead edition...




This is awesome. I love it.

In spite of myself I'm going to give DDN a chance.  I don't care for 4e, but I want to see D&D live forever so I wish WOTC would just keep supporting all editions, with 4e as a flagship (add improvements, tweaks whatever).  If they would occasionally make a few new classic, 1e, 2e modules, campaigns etc. while still making old material available through POD or Pdf. I would be quite happy. 

I want WOTC to thrive and make tons of profit.  I want D&D to be around for my great-grandchildren.
No, you're not alone.

Each game of D&D has things about it that I enjoy.  I'm sure I'll enjoy DDN as much as any other.  It seems destined to tickle my nostalgia bone if nothing else ;).  It's great to see spellcasting looking more Vancian again.

Nothing wrong with that but 4e has made me realize that I need a bit more by now.  For instance, rolling for hit points feels like a step back rather than a step forward for me.  I've gotten used to 'average' or fixed hit points over the last decade.  I've moved on but the playtest takes me back and reminds me what the legacy mechanics were.  

Is this good or bad?  I dunno.  Hit points are important and fixed or averaged amounts are easy enough to houserule.  In this case, fixed HPs are something from 4e that I'll recall fondly.  Even NADs ;).

= = =

I like the advantage/disadvantage system already.  Otherwise, the playtest is as bare bones as I expected and I look forward to trying things out (we plan on getting together this weekend).  Once there's some meat on dem bones, I'll no doubt feel more positive.
/\ Art
I am very happy with the direction D&DNext is going. I, for one, wasn't pleased with 4E and am glad to see some older edition appealing features returning.
I too am very happy with my first read through of 5e.  The feel on first glance reminds me alot of the nature of 2e without needing algebra to calculate thaco.  Of course in this I am making some assumptions since character construction rules are not in place, but backgrounds and themes seem to be replacing what proficiencies were in second edition.  I do like that Wizards kept the ability to cast a couple spells at will (one thing I did like about 4e) but I also like that wizards and clerics once again have to manage there spells effciently and that all casters will once again have utility spells rather than largely a combat selection as seen in 4e.  

Personally so far I see 5e as all the things I liked about 2e, 3e, and 4e while dumping alot of things I hated about those editions.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
From what I see in the playtest so far, you're getting "your D&D" back - some neat ideas with the same old fundamental flaws that drove me away in the early '80s. Now can you go away, please, and allow those of us who prefer something different to enjoy what we like in peace?



Um, I don't think they really can, no.  Look, I prefer many things about 4e to previous editions myself (I preferred building characters in 3e, but everything else, including designing adventures and in particular actually playing the game, I liked more in 4e).  But this is not the 4e forums, this is the D&D next forums, and like it or not, that means D&D 3.75, not 4.anything.  Appealing to those who rejected 4e is a big part of the stated goal of 5e, so...  Yeah.  A healthy dose of patience for 4e haters on these boards is probably going to be necessary.


As for my own feelings...  I'm hoping here that classes scale in a balanced manner, that everyone has things to do in and out of combat, and that adventures are easy to assemble and run as they were in 4e, not a giant hassle for the DM as they were in prior editions.  I also hope to see a variety of complexities in the final class lineup regardless of archetype.  There's a place for fighter's who just swing their sword and wizards who manage complicated suites of spells, but there's a place for warblades with a wide variety of maneuvers and stances and warlocks who just fire away with eldritch blast as well.  If I'm an experienced player who wants a complicated character, I want there to be warrior archetype classes that I can find fulfilling.  Likewise if a young player, new to the game, comes to my table wanting to play an elf magician, I want there to be options I can point him to that won't be overwhelming without having to try and lead him so some other character concept entirely.

If all of that comes to pass, well, I won't stop playing 4e.  But I might play 5e, too.
In my opinion, the thing that strikes me the most "3e-ish" is the presentation of material. For example, spell writeups and descriptions of monster abilities. This, to me, is a dislike because I prefer the bite-size shorthand presentation of 4e.

Note I'm talking about presentation however. When I look at the character sheets, I see something that really reflect 4e essentials.

Ultimately, my point is I think people that enjoy 4e (such as myself) need not be as worried as they're initial judgements are suggesting. After my initial "ick 3e presentation" reaction, I now see something that makes me think "ok it's some hybrid of 3e and 4e and also simplified too". Though I really hope we get DDI tools that give me my shorthand presentation for the game table. 
You're not alone. If some serious changes aren't made and serious inclusion of 4e elements aren't forthcoming, you can bet I'll be 4e grognard. I have no need to know that 5% of hobgoblins have a longsword and whip. It doesn't add anything to game. Neither does the return to random dice rolls for so many things that have no need to be random (drunken damage resistance? really?) Such a massive step backwards in design.
You're not alone. If some serious changes aren't made and serious inclusion of 4e elements aren't forthcoming, you can bet I'll be 4e grognard. (...)


I believe the proper term is "4VENGER".
I have no need to know that 5% of hobgoblins have a longsword and whip.


ouch!


I hate Next--so much so that I withdrew from the Friends & Family playtest after going through the rules and being bored to tears in my first playtest game. I've been playing since '78 but quit during 3.5 because it was such a mess. But 4e, with its cooperative team play, its roles and powers, etc. brought me back and I love it. But Next is the old stuff regurgitated and I see no reason to go back to that style of game.
Yeah, you are not alone! I have played all editions of D&D since red box and every next edition I have played in some way captivated me with new ideas and new developements. With every new edition I felt excited and "hot to play". With D&D Next all I feel is boredom and perhaps some slight aversion. The whole point seems to be to step back to 3.X with the whole design.

Well, what gives me hope is that there might be enough 4e grognards (4vengers if you will ;) ) who would be up for some kind of D&D 4.5 fan-based project. Because if we will not see really massive changes in the design of Next, I would rather try and fix the few things I don't like about D&D4 then play what should correctly be named D&D Backwards.
I was going to write a detailed response about how 4th edition killed DnD for me, but pretty much just reverse the feelings of Starkiller_ above and you will get the gist of what I feel.  Glad to be on the development floor for Next, hopefully the community can help build a better DnD.
My initial reaction to these rules is also rather lukewarm. It feels like we've seen it all before. It's so cautious and tepid. I'd rather see something bold and divisive like WFRP 3rd edition than just an "ok" reiteration of concepts from older D&D editions.
I hope they come up with something more exciting before this edition is released.
"Divisive"?  Really?

I like my RPG games with some RP in them. I know I'm saying that a lot, but it's true. 4th Edition just felt like it was built for people who wanted to roll dice and run from combat to combat.



You don't need rules for RP, so why should they write entire lengths about it in the PHBs? There's no need for that. I had just as much RP in 4e than I had in 3.5e.
You're not alone. If some serious changes aren't made and serious inclusion of 4e elements aren't forthcoming, you can bet I'll be 4e grognard. (...)


I believe the proper term is "4VENGER".


It's actually "fourgnard"
I was going to write a detailed response about how 4th edition killed DnD for me, but pretty much just reverse the feelings of Starkiller_ above and you will get the gist of what I feel.  Glad to be on the development floor for Next, hopefully the community can help build a better DnD.



You are incredibly new to the Internet if you think the community will have any say in D&D Next. It's all a way for WotC to groom grognard's sense of self-importance and make them feel important. They won't do anything you suggest.

I'm actually kind of glad D&D Next sucks, I can just enjoy playing what I have and get into the Fantasy Flight Star Wars game when it comes out.

I like my RPG games with some RP in them. I know I'm saying that a lot, but it's true. 4th Edition just felt like it was built for people who wanted to roll dice and run from combat to combat.



You don't need rules for RP, so why should they write entire lengths about it in the PHBs? There's no need for that. I had just as much RP in 4e than I had in 3.5e.




This. The best thing about 4e was the lack of rules around RP. Codifying everything is what made 3.x ridiculous.
There are two things I like about Next that I would like to see retroed into 4e:
1. Advantage/disadvantage - quick, easy mechanic that takes away the metagaming "I know the attack only hit you by 3 so I will interrupt and boost your defense by 4."
2. Losing your standard action on your turn if you interrupt another creature's turn - this would speed up combat some. 

Nope, not alone.

I was a slow convert from 3.5e/Pathfinder to 4e, but after going from 4e back to 3.5e, I didn't like it anywhere near as much as I remembered liking it.

In 2e/3e/Pathfinder there are some elements I absolutely loathe, in 4e there are some elements I wish were tweaked, or different, but there's nothing I really hate.

Reading the play test I'm really wishing WotC would continue to support and develop 4e instead of throwing it under the bus and running away...




I'm having a similar reaction - but not willing to give up on NEXT yet.  The combat looks a bit more abstracted and quicker and I think that is a good thing.  I'm tired of 3-4 hours of 4E playing getting through only 2 combat encounters.  They drag on for my group and the game is more like Warhammer or other tactical minis games.  I would like to move on from that.
Sign In to post comments