D&D next Playtest pack 10 29 12 deep analysis (part 1)

19 posts / 0 new
Last post

Good morning, my name is Rodrigo and I ’m going to analyze this new playtesting pack (10-29-2012)


Let’s start talking a little about my experience :


I started playing d&d  8years ago, playing 3.0 and 3.5 editions at least once a week, never interrupting playing for more then a couple of months a year. I have a huge experience as a master and as a player, as me and my core group (other two guys) introduced many others to the game, being in contact with most of the d&d groups in the nearer cities. We also tested 4.0 for one and a half year, and we left that for 3.5 recently because it was too skill intensive (too many stuffs to remember, hours combats with hours of plans simply to place toons on the terrain), too low in role play and absolutely not master friendly, even for us with years of experience. 3.x edition is absolutely unbalanced (melee classes only roll dices in combat, while high level casters do miracles and such, also prestige classes are not equilibrated) but at last It was master friendly, with some easy combat mechanic (not even needing for some terrain map in 60-70% of the cases), and master touch could easily fix all the classes gap with some focused drop (even if “you are the gear you wear” is a mechanic we don’t really like in role-play terms).


What we expect from d&d NEXT:


We expect d&d next to be a fixed version of 3.5 while keeping up with it’s easiness, master friendliness and roleplayfriendliness . We don’t even consider 4.0 d&d as a d&d, but similar  to a random online roleplay game in which you keep press buttons while not caring  about roleplay at all. We’re not the kind of group totally caring on in-combat aspects of the game (but we would like to have it balanced) , if we want 100% combat we play some board game. That said, this pack is a start of a good job but with some minor bugs and some big pack of unbalanced stuff. Let’s check it out together in detail (also providing  for solutions).



MINOR BUGS


FIRST OF ALL: we’re always kind annoyed about measures. In EU, length are measured in METRES and weights in KILOGRAM. We don’t rly care about kg’s, but always calculating movement doing  divisions  etc is disappointing. A reasonable solution could be to substitute feet into squares.


In the “How to play” section


-The “hide” action is not clearly explained. In our opinion hide can take “action”, “movement” or “no action” at all depending on the situation. Examples : 1) “I make some place in the bush to hide myself” (normal action), “I run behind the huge rock while they come in our direction” (movement), “I hide myself hopping behind the rock I was sitting on” (no action).


-Movement. The in-combat movement appears slow. This is not really a thing to correct, as the combat mechanics prevent kiting mechanics and looks overall equilibrated. We are just usual to some “charge” mechanic, so moving 4/6 squares and attack  per  turn looks a bit slow.


-Ranged attacks in melee: this absolutely looks like a “must fix”. You shall not be allowed to hit an enemy in melee with a ranged attack (including spells that makes you do ranged attacks) without drawbacks. We think that a reasonable fix could be : If you attack a target with a ranged attack into his reach you have disadvantage, if you are in the reach of an hostile creature and you want to attack another creature you suffer an opportunity attack (in the case of cover, it works like usual).


-Critical hit: the critical hit extra damage at lvl 1 is too high, maxed dmg is enough to one shot a creature (including the fact that you maximize expertize die spent to deal more dmg) and +2d6 makes it even bigger. Suggestion is to exclude expertize die from the maximized effect, and/or reduce the extra damage into 1d6.


-Invisible: attacks made while invisible MUST have advantage. This advantage does not apply versus creatures that does not rely mainly on sight.


-Intoxicated : why in the world an intoxicated creature shall take less dmg? An intoxicated creature shall DEAL less dmg, like when  you’re drunk and you can’t apply your full power to attacks. This is also a “must fix”, otherwise ” I’m a tank and I drink random low level poisons to tank better”.


-Unconscious: an unconscious creature is not able to protect itself, so it’s not reasonable that you only get advantage in the attacks you make against it. Attacks shall be automatically hit, and if not coup-de-grace at least they should be automatically critical hits (you can easily take aim at that creature’s weak spots).


In the “Backgrounds and Skills” section


-Artisan: The guild mechanic is considered bad by everyone here. If you’re an artisan you should craft stuffs, that’s the point. The mechanic you inserted in the pack before was overall corrected, the gaining in doing it was just too high, risking to transmute the game into a “4hrs session in which every player grind for mats to craft stuffs and gain big money”. It’s easy to fix it, just diminishing the gains can be ok. You shall provide mats no more equal to ½ of the item’s cost, but 8/10 or 19/20 or 999/1000 or whatever you think it’s reasonable. Consider  that  x% of a cheap item is a poor amount of gain, but the same x% of some really expensive item can be big money (in the pack before 50% of a full plate armor could be a straight 2500g gain, unbalanced)


-Thieve : A thieve must be able to pickpocket better then anyone else. Take out balance and insert sleight of hand in his ability list.


-skill DRIVE: this skill looks totally useless, you can remove it and add drive’s function to the ride skill.


-skill DISGUISE: remove totally and add it’s functions to the bluff skill. Having too many skills to do similar actions can cause confusion for the master and for the players.


In the “Character Sheet” section


-There’s too many space for the character’s note. You don’t need that space at all, if my character has details I simply describe them while I introduce the character. That space can be better use for known/charged spells. Reduce that space and increase space for spells.


In the “Races” section


-IMPORTANT: What really annoyed us about the 4.0 d&d was that if you wanted to be 100% effective in combat you MUST select a race combined to a certain class(usually the one that improve your attack roll). So if your toon dies and you want to do another one with the same class you had to take the same race or change the class specialty and take a different race. Every player if possible wants to have the biggest advantage he can by building the character in the best way, the point is that the dwarves are not only warriors and priest, and elves are not only rogues or mages. If I want to do something different, like a dwarf mage, why have I to be nerfed? If I build my own background I may be a dwarf without any “martial weapon” training and instead be trained by a magic council, so why should I have an increase  in weapon dice damage, or a train in medium armor just because I’m born as a dwarf? . Same for the physic stuffs. Not all the elves are full of dex, they can also be tough or whatever else, especially depending on the training they received. What we really ask is not to lock the player’s creativity into schemes, but help them develop instead. If I want to play something different from the standard, that shouldn’t necessary be lower then the average. Suggestion could be to take out all the advantage that a race can give you in combat while keeping up with racial out-of-combat stuff (like elves’s trance, dwarves’s stonecutting and so on). I understand +1ability given by the class, but the racial one should be free to choose (or included into background/specialty).


IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THINGS LIKE THEY ARE, THESE CAN BE SOME FIXES TO DO


-Mountain Dwarf: probably a typing error. Correct the proficiency in light armor into heavy armor (or just add it, if you’re competent in heavy armor it’s supposed you can wear light ones)


-High elf: this race is not appealing as a human to make a caster class. The +2 ability bonus instead of +1 makes your hitting bonus bigger and increases your cd’s by 1. Suggestion may be to remove the “free spell” ability (quite useless) and insert some bonus to caster’s combat(or just nerf human, see below).


-Halfling: small size  only appears to be  a drawback. You shall add some circumstances bonus like +x to hide and sneak. Also, lucky 2x day looks too big for a racial bonus. You shall substitute one charge of lucky with some static balanced bonus.


-Stout Halfling: this race is totally not appealing, I bet nobody will play it. No class using car, no synergic bonus for any of the listed classes, just a situational crap. Remove it.


-Human: if you want races to be a “mark” of something , the +2ability modifier of the humans is the worst bonus you could give. For instance, Dwarves actually should be the tougher race while Elves should be the most agile one. However, a random human is better then an elf in dexterity and another random human is better than a dwarf into constitution (also, the stat bonuses make him better then a specific race and equal to ALL THE OTHERS).  It is clear that, in role-play terms, this is not acceptable. I suggest you to reduce the ability bonus to +1 to 2-3abilities and give a  +1 bonus damage with physical weapons (this bonus is given specifically by all the races, in this case it’s just more versatile).


In the “Specialty” section


-Arcane: maximize spell should be learned at lvl 9 while quickens should be learned at lvl 6.


-Stealth: this specialty is totally not appealing, it gives some low combat advantages confronted with other specialties.


In the “Bestiary” section


-Average monsters/encounters are absolutely LOW. This translates in fights with loads of monsters to compensate, making turns longer. You should pump up the average  monsters, in order to diminish their number in the fights.




Hi,

This isn't really session feedback so I'll be moving it on to Playtest Packet Discussion.

Thanks!

Monica

Monica

Wizards of the Coast Online Community Coordinator

A friendly dragon.

Thank for the support (in both the posts) !
Don't know what to say to all this, other than I agree with mostly everything.  Human is a little overpowered with stats, I agree...+1 physical damage is simple, yet effective.  I'd like bonus feat, but to each their own.  Not sure if removing the stout halfling is the answer, but revamping it is if that isn't.  High elf needs help too, but I'm not sure if I have heard anyone say something yet that looks really good for them.  Wood elf could use a slight boost. 

So, here is the thing. You have some good analysis. Some of what you say I agree with. Much of what you want, I want. But, you opened your analysis with this little gem:

We expect d&d next to be a fixed version of 3.5 while keeping up with it’s easiness, master friendliness and roleplayfriendliness . We don’t even consider 4.0 d&d as a d&d, but similar  to a random online roleplay game in which you keep press buttons while not caring  about roleplay at all. We’re not the kind of group totally caring on in-combat aspects of the game (but we would like to have it balanced) , if we want 100% combat we play some board game. That said, this pack is a start of a good job but with some minor bugs and some big pack of unbalanced stuff. Let’s check it out together in detail (also providing  for solutions).



I am sick and tired of edition warring. I am sick and tired of seeing some jerk say, "what you like isn't D&D because it doesn't mesh with what I like." I am sick and tired of watching people mischaracterize games just because they don't like them, and perceive them in a certain way. I am sick and tired of watching people try and empirically qualify the subjective qualities of a thing. 

So, I am not going to participate. I am not going to comment. I am just going to say, whether you like it or not, 4e D&D is D&D. And, whether you like it or not, this game can't be a "fixed version of 3.5. It has to be a version of D&D that appeals to some fans of every edition, as in at least a sizable minority from each edition, perhaps a majority from one edition or two, because otherwise this edition will be a financial failure. 

So, maybe you can be less vitriolic towards an edition that you don't particularlly like. Some members of this communicty love that edition. Thanks for comming out! 


 




Dear Cyber-Dave


In this analysis i just expressed my personal opinion and the ones of my groupmates. As this d&d next will be based on opinions (otherwise they won't ask us feedbacks), we express them. I respect your opinions but

I studied aeconomics (and have a degree)

Do you think that, if 4th edition was a success (in money terms) they would've stopped printing manuals and starting this playtest? They are probably investing TONS of money in this playtest to make even more, because 4th edition (at least in my country, ita) was a total failure, with shopkeepers full of manuals they never sell (and not only because people download that from internet), while Pathfinder stuff gets bought and bought. This translates in NO MONEY. So, wotc doesn't aim to satisfy customers friendly to all expansions, but the biggest number of customers possible, got it? At least here in Italy (that's why i clarified that i speak about opinions, as i don't know situations in other countries) d&d fans belongs 90% from 3.x expansions and 10% to 4th. If you know marketing basics (i work as a marketing adept in a big company atm) what kind of game would you create to make money? Easy answer. So i totally agree with them, and if they make a game i don't like, because i'm in a minority, i just shut up and don't buy (and keep play 3.5), that's all, no rage, no polemics about what i like and what not.


For more details about wotc marketing, take a look at monte cook's hiring (one of the 3.x game designers) and i also heard about his firing, not sure of it btw.    


Also, i added motivations at my opinions.


d&d is a roleplay game (that's how it is classified), and 4.0 is not roleplay friendly (that said after 1 year and a half of test, 1time a week. Maybe it's just us, maybe not, that's an opinion), so we don't consider 4.0 d&d, it's OUR logic.    


That said, let's all keep work on it as it's a great opportunity. You say what you want, i say what i want, no rage. And if you like 4th edition, why don't you just play it XD  


O.-

I am noticing a pattern. Your analysis tends to have major logical problems. In your analysis of flurry of blows that is easy to prove mathematically. Here, one can see the problem again, though from a slightly different angle.


I studied aeconomics (and have a degree)


This is called an argument from authority. It is a formal logical fallacy. Who you are and what your degree is in is irrelevant to the argument. All that matters is your argument. If your argument is flawed, your background doesn’t suddenly make your argument valid.

Do you think that, if 4th edition was a success (in money terms) they would've stopped printing manuals and starting this playtest?


First of all, you are arguing a strawman. I never said 4th edition was a financial success. Second of all, I just want to point out, by this logic 3e was a financial failure as well; they stopped producing 3e to put out 4e. Of course, the truth is, we don’t know why WotC stopped working on any given edition. Correlation is not causation. And, we don’t know what constitutes a “financial failure” by WotC’s standards. There are too many unknown factors to state anything as fact.


They are probably investing TONS of money in this playtest to make even more, because 4th edition (at least in my country, ita) was a total failure, with shopkeepers full of manuals they never sell (and not only because people download that from internet), while Pathfinder stuff gets bought and bought.


Please, prove this. Try and remember, anecdotal evidence is not proof. I want hard sales numbers.


At least here in Italy (that's why i clarified that i speak about opinions, as i don't know situations in other countries) d&d fans belongs 90% from 3.x expansions and 10% to 4th.


Those are some very specific numbers. Can you back that up with fact?


If you know marketing basics (i work as a marketing adept in a big company atm) what kind of game would you create to make money? Easy answer.


What I know is that if I worked in a higher position for a big company and one of my employees threw out hard numbers on the basis of anecdotal evidence, such as you are doing, and then created a design plan based on logical fallacies, I would fire them. What I know is what WotC has said about their own design plan: it is supposed to appeal to fans of all editions, including 4e. I am assuming that this means that appealing only to fans of 3e will cause the same problems, financially speaking, as those that caused them to abandon the edition in the first place. I don’t know what those problems are exactly, as I don’t have access to the data required to form a reasonable conclusion.

d&d is a roleplay game (that's how it is classified), and 4.0 is not roleplay friendly (that said after 1 year and a half of test, 1time a week. Maybe it's just us, maybe not, that's an opinion), so we don't consider 4.0 d&d, it's OUR logic.


These forums have a code of conduct. Engaging in edition warring is against that code of conduct. Saying that a particular edition “is not D&D,” or “was not a roleplaying game,” despite the fact that both claims are objectively untrue (whatever your personal preferences are in terms of roleplaying games), is codified as edition warring on these forums. It is against the code of conduct.      


That said, let's all keep work on it as it's a great opportunity. You say what you want, i say what i want, no rage. And if you like 4th edition, why don't you just play it XD


Why don’t you just go play 3e? And, I happen to have some major problems with 4e. I just get really annoyed by forum posters who engage in edition warring. 

I don't rly care about edition warring, you started all of that (and went out of topic)


You're also commenting all my posts with loads of rage,probably because i said that.


Haters gonna hate     
Dear Cyber-Dave


In this analysis i just expressed my personal opinion and the ones of my groupmates. As this d&d next will be based on opinions (otherwise they won't ask us feedbacks), we express them. I respect your opinions but

I studied aeconomics (and have a degree)

Do you think that, if 4th edition was a success (in money terms) they would've stopped printing manuals and starting this playtest? They are probably investing TONS of money in this playtest to make even more, because 4th edition (at least in my country, ita) was a total failure, with shopkeepers full of manuals they never sell (and not only because people download that from internet), while Pathfinder stuff gets bought and bought. This translates in NO MONEY. So, wotc doesn't aim to satisfy customers friendly to all expansions, but the biggest number of customers possible, got it? At least here in Italy (that's why i clarified that i speak about opinions, as i don't know situations in other countries) d&d fans belongs 90% from 3.x expansions and 10% to 4th. If you know marketing basics (i work as a marketing adept in a big company atm) what kind of game would you create to make money? Easy answer. So i totally agree with them, and if they make a game i don't like, because i'm in a minority, i just shut up and don't buy (and keep play 3.5), that's all, no rage, no polemics about what i like and what not.


For more details about wotc marketing, take a look at monte cook's hiring (one of the 3.x game designers) and i also heard about his firing, not sure of it btw.    


Also, i added motivations at my opinions.


d&d is a roleplay game (that's how it is classified), and 4.0 is not roleplay friendly (that said after 1 year and a half of test, 1time a week. Maybe it's just us, maybe not, that's an opinion), so we don't consider 4.0 d&d, it's OUR logic.    


That said, let's all keep work on it as it's a great opportunity. You say what you want, i say what i want, no rage. And if you like 4th edition, why don't you just play it XD  


O.-




Hey Redda,


actually they stopped 3.5 for the very same reason. It was not making the money they expected it to make.

I'm italian as you are, and can tell you that the two groups I play with moved from 3.5 to 4th easily and are not looking to go back. We started to playtest and after a couple of sessions decided to stop and begin a campaign of Ultramodern4 and another 4e campaign respectively.
4e is as roleplaying friendly as 3.0/3.5 and 2e (the editions I played the most in the past), it's just different from previous editions but to me (and my groups) it's far better.

The fact that older editions sold more in Italy is true, but that has also something to do with support and translation. The number of stores selling TTRPG's has gone down (at least in the area where I live, that of Como and Milano) and the whole hobby lost ground. As far as I can remember 2e sold much better than 3e anyway and at that time the hobby was much more popular. I bought my first red box in a general shopping store, but now if you want to buy a 4e manual you have to go to a specialized one.

On top of that the translations in italian that still are very important to keep up the business, became slower and slower. Aside from the main three manuals I saw that it took several months from the release of the english version to the release of the translation for every 4e book and there are several books I have never seen translated.
        

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

I really only want to comment on one thing (some parts of your post I agree with, some I disagree with).

Why does the ability to make ranged attacks in melee with less penalties bother you?
On measurements:
The final versaion may have SI units for measure but has not been currently translated/converted. For now you will have to suffer slightly and use the imperial measurements.

Combat is an abstraction for everything that is happening in the game. Movement may appear to be slow because it is. Its not just a matter of simply moving but it also accounts for all of the positioning, dodgeing, changing of stances etc that also occures during combat.

Ranged attacks in melee previously provoked an attack of opportunity to distrupt the attack. Later iterations required specific feats in order to accomplish this. Keep in mind that there are also varrying degrees of combat rules. Attempting to simulate every single little nuance of combat would bog the whole system down and take forever to navigate. Hence rules are simplified and things are condenced/ommited. Thats why there are usually advanced combat/optional rules so that each group can tailor their gaming experience to meet their individual expectations.

Combat at level 1 is always exceedingly lethal. Hopefully they do somehting like level 1 you gan you maximum hit die + Con bonus and double it. That makes critical hits devestating but not nearly so.


ON races:
I have been playing D&D since the original rules were first released. Back then there were some pretty substantial race/class restrictions as well as a multitude of attribute requirements as well. Many of the bonuses were only applicable for high attributes as well. eg. you needed a 16 for a +1 bonus, 17 for a +2 bonus and an 18 for a +3 bonus.

In ever version of D&D and ever version of pretty much any RPG ever made there is (and always will be) an Ideal race/class combination. From a min/max or power gamer prespective this will be an important factor when selecing a race and class. From a role play perspective however it does not matter. Heroes will not be judged on how powerful they are but rather how they overcome their short comings.

With the 3rd ed(3.5rd/th ed and 4th ed) rules the reality is that you can be perfectly effective in combat with pretty much any race/class combination. As you level you get additional attribute bonuses that quickly surpass any shortcommings that may be associated with a particular race/class. There is also the magic items/gear that you find along the way too. After a few levels the difference between dwarf/elf/halfling/human/whatever cleric/fighter/thief/wizard/whatever are indistinguishable.

The attribute bonuses that a race recieves (and no longer the penalties they recieve) is simply more representative on "on average". On average elves are more dexterous that a human. On average a dwarf is tougher (and more drunk) than a human. On average a halfling is more curious than a human or cat.
What I mean on the question with ranged attacks, is how does it add to your gaming experience for it to be very difficult to effectively fight ranged? This is an open question for anyone.

I ask because I like interesting combats, and I've always felt the rules over-penalized ranged attacks. For instance, in 3.x not only did you suffer from cover penalties (the same as Next is doing), but if you didn't have two feats you also suffered an additional -4 just because your target was in melee, not to mention the AoO you suffered if you happen to be in melee.

Basically, you either spent 2 feats and then had to circle the battle, making sure never to get into melee with anyone and always to stay on the far side of your allies, or you took a shot before you closed and then switched to melee.

Ranged attacks already do less damage and require ammo. I don't see the appeal of making it so difficult for a character who wants to focus on ranged attacks to be useful.

I mean, Legolas never had a problem shooting people from 5' away.
In my opinion, in every medieval war ever fought, when infantry or cavalry reaches bowmans, they die. It's not reasonable that in d&d they don't have any penalty shooting in melee.


At least, that's what i think. 

In the “Races” section


-IMPORTANT: What really annoyed us about the 4.0 d&d was that if you wanted to be 100% effective in combat you MUST select a race combined to a certain class(usually the one that improve your attack roll). So if your toon dies and you want to do another one with the same class you had to take the same race or change the class specialty and take a different race. Every player if possible wants to have the biggest advantage he can by building the character in the best way, the point is that the dwarves are not only warriors and priest, and elves are not only rogues or mages. If I want to do something different, like a dwarf mage, why have I to be nerfed? If I build my own background I may be a dwarf without any “martial weapon” training and instead be trained by a magic council, so why should I have an increase  in weapon dice damage, or a train in medium armor just because I’m born as a dwarf? . Same for the physic stuffs. Not all the elves are full of dex, they can also be tough or whatever else, especially depending on the training they received. What we really ask is not to lock the player’s creativity into schemes, but help them develop instead. If I want to play something different from the standard, that shouldn’t necessary be lower then the average. Suggestion could be to take out all the advantage that a race can give you in combat while keeping up with racial out-of-combat stuff (like elves’s trance, dwarves’s stonecutting and so on). I understand +1ability given by the class, but the racial one should be free to choose (or included into background/specialty).


IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THINGS LIKE THEY ARE, THESE CAN BE SOME FIXES TO DO


-Mountain Dwarf: probably a typing error. Correct the proficiency in light armor into heavy armor (or just add it, if you’re competent in heavy armor it’s supposed you can wear light ones)


-High elf: this race is not appealing as a human to make a caster class. The +2 ability bonus instead of +1 makes your hitting bonus bigger and increases your cd’s by 1. Suggestion may be to remove the “free spell” ability (quite useless) and insert some bonus to caster’s combat(or just nerf human, see below).


-Halfling: small size  only appears to be  a drawback. You shall add some circumstances bonus like +x to hide and sneak. Also, lucky 2x day looks too big for a racial bonus. You shall substitute one charge of lucky with some static balanced bonus.


-Stout Halfling: this race is totally not appealing, I bet nobody will play it. No class using car, no synergic bonus for any of the listed classes, just a situational crap. Remove it.


-Human: if you want races to be a “mark” of something , the +2ability modifier of the humans is the worst bonus you could give. For instance, Dwarves actually should be the tougher race while Elves should be the most agile one. However, a random human is better then an elf in dexterity and another random human is better than a dwarf into constitution (also, the stat bonuses make him better then a specific race and equal to ALL THE OTHERS).  It is clear that, in role-play terms, this is not acceptable. I suggest you to reduce the ability bonus to +1 to 2-3abilities and give a  +1 bonus damage with physical weapons (this bonus is given specifically by all the races, in this case it’s just more versatile).


In our playtest group, noone has EVER picked a human because they are god awful boring and there is a max score of 20, so big whoop on getting there slightly faster than everyone else.

For us, the free spell of the high elf has been very popular as it gives an instant boost in power to wizards and give others a ulility power to others (prestidigitation, light, minor image, ect.). IMO they should keep it as is.

As far a the stout, there are plenty of skills that are CHA, so a buff for a skill monkey type character isn't a bad thing, and neither is ending frightened. I'd pick a stout over the uber-boring human for that kind of character every time.

Humans HAVE to get something other than the stat buffs. As is, they are LAME! They should drop/kill the human and start over from scratch...

In my opinion, in every medieval war ever fought, when infantry or cavalry reaches bowmans, they die. It's not reasonable that in d&d they don't have any penalty shooting in melee.


At least, that's what i think. 

Good thing We aren't playing a medieval war game then, since last time I checked I've never heard of wizards or elves in a medieval war. As such, I think we can pretty much throw out what actually happened. Wink

One big advantage legolas had in the movie was that his fights were choreographed.
One big advantage legolas had in the movie was that his fights were choreographed.



How dare you!  You take that back right this instant! =)   
It makes sense to penalize ranged attacks in melee if you are using a bow, the time you need to draw and aim in real-life would probably mean a sword through your gut if you were in melee. This woul not apply to crossbows though, they are point and shoot.

None of this applies in fantasy though. An archer in fantasy can draw and fire then draw and fire again before the first arrow finds its mark, and hit a bullseye both times. It is completely reasonable that someone who has focused as an archer could draw and fire point blank into some monsters face as it menaced him. It happens in movies and books quite often and DnD is set closer to those cinematic fantasies than to real-life logic.

Also, as for medieval warfare. Any opposing group of soldiers vs mounted knights tended to end badly for the soldiers, unless they had pikes and were not hit from the side. Also most "archers" were poor peasants who recieved a week of training, the reason you got a block of archers who fired at the same time was they didn't take the time to train them to be accurate so they needed to fill the area with arrows if they expected to do any damage. When these poorly trained peasants who only had bows and no armor were faced with trained soldiers... well how well do you think you'd do against a trained fighter if you had no training?
 


I am sick and tired of edition warring. I am sick and tired of seeing some jerk say, "what you like isn't D&D because it doesn't mesh with what I like." I am sick and tired of watching people mischaracterize games just because they don't like them, and perceive them in a certain way. I am sick and tired of watching people try and empirically qualify the subjective qualities of a thing. 


So, I am not going to participate. I am not going to comment. I am just going to say, whether you like it or not, 4e D&D is D&D. And, whether you like it or not, this game can't be a "fixed version of 3.5. It has to be a version of D&D that appeals to some fans of every edition, as in at least a sizable minority from each edition, perhaps a majority from one edition or two, because otherwise this edition will be a financial failure. 

So, maybe you can be less vitriolic towards an edition that you don't particularlly like. Some members of this communicty love that edition. Thanks for comming out! 




Thank you.

In my eyes, the OP invalidated himself as soon as he started his edition rant.