The Real Reason People Hate 4th Ed.

656 posts / 0 new
Last post

 Long story short. People don't like change. I'm one of them and I'm not exactly a big fan of 4th ed. People tend to like what they have and with "geek" hobbies like RPGs and video games you tend to get ratherdevoted fanboys.

 I like 3.5 for the most part warts and all. I know it has massive probems but I use a very houseruled version of 3.5 banning alot of the abusive spells and feats. Also since 3.5 is modular I've incorporated the Pathfinder races and the 4th ed skill system with an expanded skill list borrowed from Star Wars Saga, 4th ed and 3.5. I'm also converting some of the 4th ed races I like into Pathfinder ones as its not really that hard. For the most part I believe that each edition of D&D is usually better than the one before it. 1st<2nd<3.0<3.5<4th etc. Or failing that each version has usually cleaned up the mechanics at least. I can usually find something I like in each edition.

 Also most older players who may not lke 4th ed are probably in their 30's and if they played 1st ed back in the day odds are they are in their 40's or older. Theres probably not alot you can do to compare with your youth. Nostalgia is a great thing. Using that yardstick 2nd ed would be my favourite edition. I was a teenager and we could hang out in my friends basement and finding 5-9 payers was very easy and you could game for hours/days in the school holidays. Add a few more years and people have families, wives, husband or they move away for career opportunities or whatever.

 Throw in the internet and you can easily get alot of informaiton very quickly. In the good ol days each group tended to have its on houserules and it may be years before you got any errata. Errata was basicaly limited ot the Sage Advice column in Dragon magazine or new books superceding the old one. In 2nd ed Faiths and Avatars and the Spells and Magic books were quite different compared to the 1989 PHB and Complete Priests handbook. You will never please everybody and its my belief that online reviews really need to read something like this to keep most people happy.

"Dear humble reader. I offer the following review/opinion in good faith. I realise that my intelligence is realy only a fraction of yours, so I'm probably wrong compared to any opinion you have"

 Copy and paste onto any thread/review you do online

  Now for example any modern car is more or less going to be better technically than say a 67 Mustang. At the end of the day the car is a classic just like some old 1st ed material are generally regarded as classics. Just like a Mutang you're going to pay a pretty penny on Ebay to aquire them as well. I think the 3.5 players handbook is worth a bit on Ebay now as well ($30-$40) which is a bit unusal as old material tends to plummet in rice and then may increase as the years go by.

  Since I've stated that people don't tend to like change that much (Dear humble reader. I offer the following review/opinion in good faith. I realise that my intelligence is realy only a fraction of yours, so I'm probably wrong compared to any opinion you have) this brings me back to 4th ed. Mechanically it is a very good edition and I suppose I'm a grognard I don't like the power system for various reasons although I think the at wills for example are a brilliant idea and worthy of using if you're running any previous edition of D&D which still uses vancian spellcasting. Thats mostly the reason our group more or less collectivly decided to go backwards although we did pirate things we liked from 4th ed.

 Also we're playing the "best" version of D&D their is- one sculped to our specific desires. Sort of a 3.75 hybrid of 4th, 3rd and Pathfinder. I doubt alot of people would like my game (Dear humble reader. I offer the following review/opinion in good faith. I realise that my intelligence is realy only a fraction of yours, so I'm probably wrong compared to any opinion you have). The hardcore 4th ed players would hate it because its still a heavily modified version of 3.5 (with 4th ed elements). The hardcore 3.5 players would probably hate it as it uses parts of Pathfinder and 4th ed and alot of stupid spells and feats are banned (natural spell, persistent spell, divine metamagic, alter self-shapechange tree etc). Basically the spellcasters have been hit with reasonably large nerf sticks.

 Some of the arguements here on the boards haven't really changed that much since 4th ed released. I'm looking forward to the 4th ed Darksun book even if I never play another 4th ed game (I probably will or I'll play 4th ed Dark Sun).

 Peace and remember

Dear humble reader. I offer the following review/opinion in good faith. I realise that my intelligence is realy only a fraction of yours, so I'm probably wrong compared to any opinion you have



 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I think it has nothing to do with change but more to do with fun.

What do YOU find fun? 

I guarantee it's different than what my players like, which is different than what the next grouplikes.

Now, i don't mean in the most basic level - ie. we find games fun...well DUH! I mean with respect to the actual nuances of the game itself.

Each game has good and bad.  4E is full of the same as was 3.XE, as was 2e, etc.  The key is to find what you like, and see that it's > what you don't like.

For my group, over the past year, we have found that for most players, that is not true...and they really do prefer 3.XE or our new custom designed D&D that we are going to use, playtest and refine over the years based on input from players.  Afterall, that is how game design is done....ideas, try them out and see what works.

My players certainly wouldn't  say 4E is the best D&D yet (well, for 1 player he would) since for what they look for...it's lacking in 2 or 3 areas that is crucial for their enjoyment.  Then again, game systems like Warhammer Fantasy roleplay also would probablyfail in that regard, while Vampire may succeed, etc. 

My thoughts....

Sanjay

Silver Demon winner -- taking painting commissions (including entire Warhammer armies or D&D adventure sets - ie. models required for a specific adventure) Want custom painted models for an upcoming adventure or display? Contact me for price quotes or samples of work...
Personally, I'd say its the best yet.. Kinda like oblivion vs morrowind. That while its totally awsome there are things there that just piss me off.

Like combat rules in 4e vs 3.5.

In 3.5 there was a helluva lot more i could do without any feats or powers. I could trip, bullrush, grapple and choke amongst a number of other things. But in 4th the abilites that allow me to push or cause an itimidating effect (ect) have been things i've wanted to do in 3.5

Like in 3.5 I'd want to charge and jump off a tree. Come down and slash my enemy with a single attack and cause them to move backwards off the cliff. Couldn't do that in 3.5 because "it was too complicated" But now there are powers that allow me to do just that.

Which this is why i'm playing a 4e game on thursday, and a 3.5 sometimes on friday.
I'd get along more with people if they didn't jump onto a hyberbole every single time you say something they don't understand.

 Long story short. People don't like change. I'm one of them and I'm not exactly a big fan of 4th ed. People tend to like what they have and with "geek" hobbies like RPGs and video games you tend to get ratherdevoted fanboys.

 I like 3.5 for the most part warts and all. I know it has massive probems but I use a very houseruled version of 3.5 banning alot of the abusive spells and feats. Also since 3.5 is modular I've incorporated the Pathfinder races and the 4th ed skill system with an expanded skill list borrowed from Star Wars Saga, 4th ed and 3.5. I'm also converting some of the 4th ed races I like into Pathfinder ones as its not really that hard. For the most part I believe that each edition of D&D is usually better than the one before it. 1st<2nd<3.0<3.5<4th etc. Or failing that each version has usually cleaned up the mechanics at least. I can usually find something I like in each edition.

 Also most older players who may not lke 4th ed are probably in their 30's and if they played 1st ed back in the day odds are they are in their 40's or older. Theres probably not alot you can do to compare with your youth. Nostalgia is a great thing. Using that yardstick 2nd ed would be my favourite edition. I was a teenager and we could hang out in my friends basement and finding 5-9 payers was very easy and you could game for hours/days in the school holidays. Add a few more years and people have families, wives, husband or they move away for career opportunities or whatever.

 Throw in the internet and you can easily get alot of informaiton very quickly. In the good ol days each group tended to have its on houserules and it may be years before you got any errata. Errata was basicaly limited ot the Sage Advice column in Dragon magazine or new books superceding the old one. In 2nd ed Faiths and Avatars and the Spells and Magic books were quite different compared to the 1989 PHB and Complete Priests handbook. You will never please everybody and its my belief that online reviews really need to read something like this to keep most people happy.

"Dear humble reader. I offer the following review/opinion in good faith. I realise that my intelligence is realy only a fraction of yours, so I'm probably wrong compared to any opinion you have"

 Copy and paste onto any thread/review you do online

  Now for example any modern car is more or less going to be better technically than say a 67 Mustang. At the end of the day the car is a classic just like some old 1st ed material are generally regarded as classics. Just like a Mutang you're going to pay a pretty penny on Ebay to aquire them as well. I think the 3.5 players handbook is worth a bit on Ebay now as well ($30-$40) which is a bit unusal as old material tends to plummet in rice and then may increase as the years go by.

  Since I've stated that people don't tend to like change that much (Dear humble reader. I offer the following review/opinion in good faith. I realise that my intelligence is realy only a fraction of yours, so I'm probably wrong compared to any opinion you have) this brings me back to 4th ed. Mechanically it is a very good edition and I suppose I'm a grognard I don't like the power system for various reasons although I think the at wills for example are a brilliant idea and worthy of using if you're running any previous edition of D&D which still uses vancian spellcasting. Thats mostly the reason our group more or less collectivly decided to go backwards although we did pirate things we liked from 4th ed.

 Also we're playing the "best" version of D&D their is- one sculped to our specific desires. Sort of a 3.75 hybrid of 4th, 3rd and Pathfinder. I doubt alot of people would like my game (Dear humble reader. I offer the following review/opinion in good faith. I realise that my intelligence is realy only a fraction of yours, so I'm probably wrong compared to any opinion you have). The hardcore 4th ed players would hate it because its still a heavily modified version of 3.5 (with 4th ed elements). The hardcore 3.5 players would probably hate it as it uses parts of Pathfinder and 4th ed and alot of stupid spells and feats are banned (natural spell, persistent spell, divine metamagic, alter self-shapechange tree etc). Basically the spellcasters have been hit with reasonably large nerf sticks.

 Some of the arguements here on the boards haven't really changed that much since 4th ed released. I'm looking forward to the 4th ed Darksun book even if I never play another 4th ed game (I probably will or I'll play 4th ed Dark Sun).

 Peace and remember

Dear humble reader. I offer the following review/opinion in good faith. I realise that my intelligence is realy only a fraction of yours, so I'm probably wrong compared to any opinion you have






Dear humble reader. I offer the following review/opinion in good faith. I realise that my intelligence is realy only a fraction of yours, so I'm probably wrong compared to any opinion you have, but in my opinion this is the best "anti 4e post" I have ever read...
I'm not an anti 4th ed player to the extent of

"4th ed sux and is a MMORPG on paper roar"

I'm more like "4th ed is a well designed system but isn't really my cup of tea".

 To compund problems.

1. We have no local gamestore
2. D&D locally seems all but dead (all editions).  Maytbe 1 4th ed group and 1 3.5 group (that I know of). Even getting players you can tolerate playing with (any edition) is difficult.

 I really want to read the 4th ed Eberoon book but don't know anyone with it so i can borrow it.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


I realise that my intelligence is realy only a fraction of yours, so I'm probably wrong compared to any opinion you have




I'll admit no such thing! 


Anyways, I am not against change in general. 
I merely don't like most of the mechanical changes that've been applied to 4e.  Sure, previous systems had their own share of flaws.  But this?  No.  I do not feel that this is the best edition to date.  I don't even think this is the best effort the designers are capable of.
Here's hoping 4.5, 5e, etc will be better....

If anyone disagrees with me?  Well, so what?  Hold whatever opinion you want.  It's not going to change my mind.  Nor is it going to prevent me from playing the versions of the game I prefer.  I'll also not  waste my time (wich is simply better spent playing) trying to convert you. 
And I assume that anyone who joins a game I'm DMing has made peace with the fact that it'll NOT be a game of 4e.  
I'll give a short answer: I don't prefer 4e over 3.5, hence my dislike of the current edition. I still play now and then, but I will never DM it. In effect, I get best of both worlds and my players get to experience D&D in two different lights.

As for change, I embrace it. I'm still waiting for the cyberbrain scientists! I know you have a prosthetic hypocampus in working order, now hurry up! Wink
-I got ran over my a squirrel the other day. -I'm going to steal my own idea. -My fruits of labor are not fruits... *sniff* they're vegetables. *sobs*
Without needlessly insulting/trolling 4th ed do people here think a few people didn't convert over due to 4th ed being diffeent than previous editions in terms of no more vancian casting and things like that. For those of you who don't really plkay 4th ed did you happily upgrade in some way from previous editions of the game?

 My progresssion was D&D-2nd ed-3.0-3.5-4th-3.75ish hybrid

 I think theres still some grgnards floating around who weren't happy with 2nd ed in 89

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Without needlessly insulting/trolling 4th ed do people here think a few people didn't convert over due to 4th ed being diffeent than previous editions in terms of no more vancian casting and things like that. For those of you who don't really plkay 4th ed did you happily upgrade in some way from previous editions of the game?

 My progresssion was D&D-2nd ed-3.0-3.5-4th-3.75ish hybrid

 I think theres still some grgnards floating around who weren't happy with 2nd ed in 89




                I have liked every edition except for 4th edition. I like the old style of play, not because I am old or I don't like change but because I like the way the older editions play. Change is not always for the better.
I have liked every edition except for 4th edition. I like the old style of play, not because I am old or I don't like change but because I like the way the older editions play. Change is not always for the better.


I have liked every edition.  I like 4E because it specifically puts me in mind of my early days of play with the Blue box and the AD&D PH/DMG/MM.  There are more mechanics now, but I find the game really flows much like my early play did all those years ago.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche Devil\'s Brigade
I say its jealousy.

I say the reason people hate on 4th edition is because we got more NADs than they do!
58292718 wrote:
I love Horseshoecrabfolk. What I love most about them is that they seem to be the one thing that we all can agree on.
See for yourself, click here!
Has anyone cracked out the old D&D basi and played it after playing 4th ed? Nostalgia can be a dangerous thing I played 2nd ed after 3.5 came out and yeah.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Has anyone cracked out the old D&D basi and played it after playing 4th ed? Nostalgia can be a dangerous thing I played 2nd ed after 3.5 came out and yeah.



My brother has. He's absolutly hooked on that game.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
Does he use the old dice as well? The ones where you have to use crayon on them to fill in the numbers and rub the excess off?

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Does he use the old dice as well? The ones where you have to use crayon on them to fill in the numbers and rub the excess off?



Nah, we have just a retro-clone of the game, so no old dice.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
I never used crayon on my dice. I'd use enamel paint and very carefully paint the numbers, and if I got some excess on the outside I'd use a small amount of paint thinner to wipe it off. Oh, and I'd paint the d20s black for 1-10 and red for 11-20 since back then they didn't go from 1-20, they went from 1-0 and then +1 - +0. Ahhh those were the days! :-)
4E is such a great departure from any previous edition.  My group has been playing it for about a year now and we're still adjusting to the changes.  There are many aspects of 4E that I like, but it is still an adjustment for me as a DM.  I find the increased length of combat and the increased tactical nature of it is something that I like, but am still adjusting to it.  The Skill Challenge is an interesting new addition that we are still learning how to incorporate properly into our games.  These are what I see really affect the feel of the game compared to previous editions.
<\ \>tuntman
I say its jealousy.

I say the reason people hate on 4th edition is because we got more NADs than they do!

Hell's Yeah!!! Other editions just need to grow a set and stop being such Bitc.....you know what I mean.

4E is such a great departure from any previous edition.  My group has been playing it for about a year now and we're still adjusting to the changes.  There are many aspects of 4E that I like, but it is still an adjustment for me as a DM.  I find the increased length of combat and the increased tactical nature of it is something that I like, but am still adjusting to it.  The Skill Challenge is an interesting new addition that we are still learning how to incorporate properly into our games.  These are what I see really affect the feel of the game compared to previous editions.



 It is a departure and its good to see that you're enjoying it. Like your avatar BTW but mines better

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

first I tought
but now I only think
a very nice post.
indeed: 4th edition introduces a couple of new mechanics. taking the best of both worlds only improves the game.
Qube's block builder: if you want to create blocks for powers, items and monsters for this forum, but don't know html
Signature in a box
For years, I've lived a double life. In the day, I do my job - I ride the bus, roll up my sleeves with the hoi-polloi. But at night, I live a life of exhilaration, of missed heartbeats and adrenalin. And, if the truth be known a life of dubious virtue. I won't deny it - I've been engaged in violence, even indulged in it. I've maimed and killed adversaries, and not merely in self-defence. I've exhibited disregard for life, limb and property, and savoured every moment. You may not think it, to look of me but I have commanded armies, and conquered worlds. And though in achieving these things I've set morality aside, I have no regrets. For though I've led a double life, at least I can say - I've lived.

3.jpg
D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - Stone Gaint

Scipio: And Chihuahuas have definitely improved in the "attacking ankles, yapping, and being generally annoying" environment. Me: OK, am I the only who sees an analogy between forum trolls & Chihuahuas?
Some of my work:
XDMC 19 (silver): A full fledged assassins guild (with stats, skill challenges, ...)link XDMC 14 (Bronze): a one shot campaign for beginning DMs/players. link XDMC 16: Paragon path: the Epitome: being better then all then any one else. link (note: this is balanced) XDMC 25: The Gelatinous Cube mount Guide To Disreality: a collection of houserules - Introduction & table of content
My ego in a box
who am I kidding? my ego would never fit in a box
Eh, I think basically 4e is just better mechanics for playing D&D. My campaign world got started in what, 1975 playing with original OD&D. Its stayed pretty much the same through 1e/2e/didn't ever get played with 3.x/4e. Not really all that much difference.

What I've found though is its the hardcore 3.x people that don't like 4e. All of us that are old time players around here and pretty much didn't do much 3.x (more because we were just burned out on the game and had other interesting games to play, no hate on 3.x particularly) are all fans of 4e. So I think maybe the OP might have missed it a bit on that. I see a LOT of people posting various places something along the lines of "Hey people, I'm an old 1e player and I just got 4e, boy does it bring back the old memories...".

I think there was a big change in attitude towards the rules system that started maybe even a bit before 3.0 came out but it really solidified in 3.x days. Old D&D and AD&D were pretty much about playing and the rules be damned. They were just a bunch of stuff some guys wrote down for how they played and were nice enough to sell it to us to make our life easier. You took what you liked, chucked what you didn't like, hacked on it some, grafted in a whole bunch of stuff from Dragon if you liked that, and just played. I absolutely never heard anyone say anything about "but, the rules say I can....". For us there is no issue except how easy is it to run our game with whatever set of rules because the rules are just secondary to the game. Official is meaningless, though I think its nice that the published rules are pretty good so we can mostly just use them as-is. Sure is no point in complaining about how they do or don't work this way or that because its always up to the group how it works.

Of course every group is different. I just think 4e is pretty friendly to old time players. Certainly not a case of it being worse since its no sacred cow. Play what you like though. If I wanted to run a game that was easier to do in 2e, I'd be there in a flash.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
4e has solid mechanics.

however i would rather a person playing the rogue have a better chance picking a pocket than the cleric. The cleric should be the only one ever capable of raising the dead no matter how many feats another non-caster takes. The wizard will be the only one no matter what who can cast leomunds tiny hut. I dont care how smart the warrior thinks he is with the ritual caster feat. Those rules take away from the unique abilities of those classes.

Now we can have a fighter who can raise the dead and pick pockets. I am sorry but thats rediculous.

4e needs to get back to more skill choices. Maybe 5e will get those.
4e has solid mechanics.

however i would rather a person playing the rogue have a better chance picking a pocket than the cleric. The cleric should be the only one ever capable of raising the dead no matter how many feats another non-caster takes. The wizard will be the only one no matter what who can cast leomunds tiny hut. I dont care how smart the warrior thinks he is with the ritual caster feat. Those rules take away from the unique abilities of those classes.

Now we can have a fighter who can raise the dead and pick pockets. I am sorry but thats rediculous.

4e needs to get back to more skill choices. Maybe 5e will get those.



So essentially you want to pigeonhole everyone back to stereotypes?

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

4e has solid mechanics.

however i would rather a person playing the rogue have a better chance picking a pocket than the cleric. The cleric should be the only one ever capable of raising the dead no matter how many feats another non-caster takes. The wizard will be the only one no matter what who can cast leomunds tiny hut. I dont care how smart the warrior thinks he is with the ritual caster feat. Those rules take away from the unique abilities of those classes.

Now we can have a fighter who can raise the dead and pick pockets. I am sorry but thats rediculous.

4e needs to get back to more skill choices. Maybe 5e will get those.



Why? Why MUST this happen? Why can't someone be rewarded for investing feats into doing something? Why is it "ridiculous" for a character to be able to learn to use some basic forms of ritualized magic? That's a pretty common fantasy thing.

Why MUST certain classes be bared from certain activities? How would this improve the game?
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
4e has solid mechanics.

however i would rather a person playing the rogue have a better chance picking a pocket than the cleric. The cleric should be the only one ever capable of raising the dead no matter how many feats another non-caster takes. The wizard will be the only one no matter what who can cast leomunds tiny hut. I dont care how smart the warrior thinks he is with the ritual caster feat. Those rules take away from the unique abilities of those classes.

Now we can have a fighter who can raise the dead and pick pockets. I am sorry but thats rediculous.

4e needs to get back to more skill choices. Maybe 5e will get those.



Why? Why MUST this happen? Why can't someone be rewarded for investing feats into doing something? Why is it "ridiculous" for a character to be able to learn to use some basic forms of ritualized magic? That's a pretty common fantasy thing.

Why MUST certain classes be bared from certain activities? How would this improve the game?



           It may not improve "your" game but it just might improve his.
4e has solid mechanics.

however i would rather a person playing the rogue have a better chance picking a pocket than the cleric. The cleric should be the only one ever capable of raising the dead no matter how many feats another non-caster takes. The wizard will be the only one no matter what who can cast leomunds tiny hut. I dont care how smart the warrior thinks he is with the ritual caster feat. Those rules take away from the unique abilities of those classes.

Now we can have a fighter who can raise the dead and pick pockets. I am sorry but thats rediculous.

4e needs to get back to more skill choices. Maybe 5e will get those.



So what you're saying every single group needs to have a wizard, a fighter, a cleric, and a rogue in it? Yawn.

The thing is the cleric isn't going to pick pockets for squat because his DEX is 10 and he's not trained in it. Maybe there is no cleric in the group because nobody wants to play one, so yeah, the fighter learns to Raise Dead if that fits into his character concept, or else the druid does or the paladin, so what? If there's a cleric in the party why would the fighter burn his feat slots on ritual casting?

Old narrowly defined classes style D&D was OK, but it was also stuck in a very deep rut. In 4e you can still run the game with the very pigeonholed PCs that follow the old formula to the letter, but you can also do something different if you want.

And look at the people that are hating on 4e the most. There almost all the ones that love playing 3.x where anyone can take levels in anything and class is practically a meaningless concept. I don't think 4e exactly invented broadening the PCs options. Old style D&D was fun, but it had a lot of limitations that have long since fallen by the wayside. You can always go play 2e if you want more narrowly defined class definitions, or play 4e in that style, but more options make the game worse? I don't think so personally.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
then my reply becomes. Why need a party just have 1 person play the fighter who can cast spells and thieve. everybody else can play wow while the fighter adventures with the bored gm.

isnt that why we play the game to get a few friends to fill roles? the options make it so you dont need a party. not very fun.
then my reply becomes. Why need a party just have 1 person play the fighter who can cast spells and thieve. everybody else can play wow while the fighter adventures with the bored gm.

isnt that why we play the game to get a few friends to fill roles? the options make it so you dont need a party. not very fun.



You are right, but ritual casting and skill training are not apart of roles.

Edit:  It takes two to raise dead as well :P

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

i would rather a person playing the rogue have a better chance picking a pocket than the cleric.


He should.  The rogue should have a higher Dex bonus.  The rogue gets Thievery as a Class skill and clerics do not, so the cleric would have to take Thievery either by multiclassing (so he's a cleric-thief) or by taking a background (so he's a cleric raised by thieves... or something similar but less silly).  And the rogue is likely to plow all his stat increased to Dex.  Generally, the rogue's pickpocket chances should be +7 to +12 above a cleric, unless the cleric is built with a thieving background (and is thus sacrificing the stuff that makes him cleric-y)

The cleric should be the only one ever capable of raising the dead no matter how many feats another non-caster takes. The wizard will be the only one no matter what who can cast leomunds tiny hut. I dont care how smart the warrior thinks he is with the ritual caster feat. Those rules take away from the unique abilities of those classes.


Or... it simply allows people to have religious wizards who also study religious rituals, and clerics who dabble in arcane arts.  I don't see why that needs ot be disallowed.  it doesn't mean that wizards are less wizard-y.  It just means that a cleric who wants to use arcane magic has to study wizardry.

Now we can have a fighter who can raise the dead and pick pockets. I am sorry but thats rediculous.


It's really nothing new.  In AD&D, we used to call that a Fighter/Cleric/Rogue.  In 3e, we used to call that a Fighter with a dip level in Cleric (and a scroll of Raise Dead) and cross-class skill points in Sleight of Hand.  They weren't optimal builds (and what you describe is playable, but not necessarily optimal in 4e), but they were there.

4e needs to get back to more skill choices. Maybe 5e will get those.


Wait a minute.  I thought you just said that classes have too many skill choices.  Fighters can choose rituals and pickpockets.  Clerics can be stealthy and have knowledge of the arcane.  I though you wanted to limit these choices!  What skill choices do you want to give them that they don't have now?
I've removed content from this thread because Baiting and Flaming are a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here.

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
then my reply becomes. Why need a party just have 1 person play the fighter who can cast spells and thieve. everybody else can play wow while the fighter adventures with the bored gm.


Because, just as in all prior editions, trying to cover all roles makes you master of none.  The fighter who spends all his feats on ritual training and skill training will never compare with a thief dedicated to Thievery or to a Wizard dedicated to Rituals.  And he'll be less effective that a Fighter who specializes in being a Defender.  Just like a 10th level fighter is better at fighting than an AD&D 4th/3rd/3rd Fighter/Cleric/Thief.
then my reply becomes. Why need a party just have 1 person play the fighter who can cast spells and thieve. everybody else can play wow while the fighter adventures with the bored gm.

isnt that why we play the game to get a few friends to fill roles? the options make it so you dont need a party. not very fun.



You are right, but too bad ritual casting and skill training are not apart of roles.





and thats what drives me nuts about 4e rules. the changes are not D&D in my opinion. Its miniature rules with a heavy slant toward combat. all the "rituals" that at one point could be used in or near combat cant. What exactly throws things out of balance for a caster to perform KNOCK while in combat?( and not have it take 100 rounds) as it was in previous editions. what exactly made this unblanced that it had to change?
then my reply becomes. Why need a party just have 1 person play the fighter who can cast spells and thieve. everybody else can play wow while the fighter adventures with the bored gm.

isnt that why we play the game to get a few friends to fill roles? the options make it so you dont need a party. not very fun.



You are right, but too bad ritual casting and skill training are not apart of roles.


and thats what drives me nuts about 4e rules. the changes are not D&D in my opinion. Its miniature rules with a heavy slant toward combat. all the "rituals" that at one point could be used in or near combat cant. What exactly throws things out of balance for a caster to perform KNOCK while in combat?( and not have it take 100 rounds) as it was in previous editions. what exactly made this unblanced that it had to change?



Take the Magister Epic Destiny, cast rituals as standard actions.

Other then that play a different edition then 4e.  Personally I love the tactical combat and the need for a grid.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

It may not improve "your" game but it just might improve his.



We aren't talking about my game, or his game, your game or anyones game. We are talking about THE game. He mentioned that he thought that strictly enforced limits on who can do certain actions is something he wants to see in 5E. I was just askinghow those changes would improve the game, if implimented into a new edition.

What exactly would it add? What would be the costs? Would it benifit the majority of players? Is it in line with current concepts of game design? There would be many factors to concider. Personally, I can't see it adding anything. All it would do is remove possibilities and make certain classes pretty much required in a party.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
then my reply becomes. Why need a party just have 1 person play the fighter who can cast spells and thieve. everybody else can play wow while the fighter adventures with the bored gm.

isnt that why we play the game to get a few friends to fill roles? the options make it so you dont need a party. not very fun.



You are right, but too bad ritual casting and skill training are not apart of roles.


and thats what drives me nuts about 4e rules. the changes are not D&D in my opinion. Its miniature rules with a heavy slant toward combat. all the "rituals" that at one point could be used in or near combat cant. What exactly throws things out of balance for a caster to perform KNOCK while in combat?( and not have it take 100 rounds) as it was in previous editions. what exactly made this unblanced that it had to change?



Take the Magister Epic Destiny, cast rituals as standard actions.

Other then that play a different edition then 4e.  Personally I love the tactical combat and the need for a grid.



            Why are you telling him to play another edition and then telling him what you like about it? What "you" like about it doesn't mean beans with regards to what he is saying.
then my reply becomes. Why need a party just have 1 person play the fighter who can cast spells and thieve. everybody else can play wow while the fighter adventures with the bored gm.


Because, just as in all prior editions, trying to cover all roles makes you master of none.  The fighter who spends all his feats on ritual training and skill training will never compare with a thief dedicated to Thievery or to a Wizard dedicated to Rituals.  And he'll be less effective that a Fighter who specializes in being a Defender.  Just like a 10th level fighter is better at fighting than an AD&D 4th/3rd/3rd Fighter/Cleric/Thief.



since the systems are competely different as far as what AC equates to what. A 10th level 4e character equivalent to what in 2e or 3e? 

playing on a map is great. i do like it to some extent. but in 4e you can not play without a map period. thats annoying.
(quote removed by ORC_Chaos)

lmgtfy.com/?q=gridless+4e     


Though I would recommend Fluid 

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

more skills as in:

Engineering
Swimming ( an no not athletics where a person is just as good as climbing swimming)
Boyer / Fletcher
Weaponsmithing
Herbalist
Hunting
Juggliing
Lores (animal, monster, places etc)

this is a few. i am headin out from work. the skills list is just to small. since 4e is about choices. i dont see many and everybody knows them. why does every adventurer know even the slightest in diplomacy.
(quote removed by ORC_Chaos)

lmgtfy.com/?q=gridless+4e     


Though I would recommend Fluid 



           So far what I have had time to read up on is gridless not mapless.
more skills as in:

Engineering
Swimming ( an no not athletics where a person is just as good as climbing swimming)
Boyer / Fletcher
Weaponsmithing
Herbalist
Hunting
Juggliing
Lores (animal, monster, places etc)

this is a few. i am headin out from work. the skills list is just to small. since 4e is about choices. i dont see many and everybody knows them. why does every adventurer know even the slightest in diplomacy.



           You could always go back to trained only skills. Some things you can only do if you are trained in them.
then my reply becomes. Why need a party just have 1 person play the fighter who can cast spells and thieve. everybody else can play wow while the fighter adventures with the bored gm.


Because, just as in all prior editions, trying to cover all roles makes you master of none.  The fighter who spends all his feats on ritual training and skill training will never compare with a thief dedicated to Thievery or to a Wizard dedicated to Rituals.  And he'll be less effective that a Fighter who specializes in being a Defender.  Just like a 10th level fighter is better at fighting than an AD&D 4th/3rd/3rd Fighter/Cleric/Thief.



since the systems are competely different as far as what AC equates to what. A 10th level 4e character equivalent to what in 2e or 3e?


No, I meant that a 10th level AD&D fighter is better at fighting than a 4/4/3 AD&D Fighter/Cleric/Thief.  Just like a 10th level 4e Fighter is better at fighting than a 10th level 4e Fighter who multiclasses into Cleric, takes the feats Skill Training (Thievery), Ritual Caster and slants Abilities to Dex and Wisdom rather than Strength and Constitution. 

but in 4e you can not play without a map period. thats annoying.


You don't need a map, though you do need some representation of each character's position relative to one another... unless you learn SARN-FU!