What I'd like to see out of the new D&D

My apologies if a lot of this has been said before, i recently returned to these boards due to the new edition news.  i drifted away after 4e came out.

I'm seeing a lot of comments about balance.  I think the finely tuned balance is actually one of the factors that drove me away from 4e.  But, I think it's actually the way in which the balance was acheived - the homogenization of the classes.  I know that the 4e classes do indeed play differently from each other, but it's also easy to come away with an initial impression that every class is "the same,"  especially if you only look at PHB 1.  So here's some of the things that I'm looking for to bring me (and my local gaming group) back to D&D:

Classes that use differnet subsystems, but are still balanced.  I want fighters to play differently from wizards.  I want them to be different play experiences ala 1e/2e, but be balanced with each other over the spread of levels.  I want wizards that can cast wish and so forth, and fighters that can do equally impressive things with weapons. But I don't want fighters to have "maneuvers" which are just renamed spells or all classes to have "powers."

I like retraining, but it should not be required to advance your character.  Your 15th level character should not have to forget his low level abilities in order to even learn high level ones.

I want combat-time useful utility magic back.  Sometimes you can win the fight with meld into stone and you should be able to cast it in one round.  I'm just not a big fan of rituals except as a potential way for non-spellcasters to have acces to some magic.

For the base game to "feel like D&D" to me, it will have to have humans, halflings, gnomes, elves, half elves, and dwarves.  It will also have to have fighters, clerics, wizards, rogues, paladins, rangers, druids, and illusionists.  And those names will have to mean what they did in previous editions - part of what drove my group away from 4e was how "fighter" now meant "melee" and "wizard" now meant "blaster."  I want to be able to convert 1e/2e worlds to 5e with minimal reality upheaval, which means the underlying assumptions about how the world is built have to stay the same.

I'd like to see reduced emphasis on magic items.  IMO, both 3.x and 4e requires characters to have way too many items, or in the case of 4e, to just give them the bonuses without having the actual items. Magic items should be special, not necessary.

I'd like to see less emphasis on grid/miniatures.  I'm fine if the game supports them, but i don't want to need them to play.

There's some more stuff, but I don't want to ramble on too long.  I'm also not implying that any of the stuff I don't like is bad, just that it's not something I look for in my D&D experience.

Welcome back!. I'm recently returned myself. Honestly I think a lot of non-4e players might echo your statements. Thankfully we'll be able to see what's what with 5e very, very soon.
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
What I find most frustrating is that most of your perceptions about 4e are superficial and inaccurate.  I do wish people in general had more tolerance for initially off-putting things to actually get down to what the system's really about.

"wizard" now meant "blaster" - Completely untrue.  Some wizards are blasters, sure.  But you could do that in prior editions.

"fighter" now meant "melee" - If by this you mean that the ranged variant of fighter is gone, then that's valid.  If you meant that fighters don't have a unique spot to fill like the one they did before...I'd disagree.

"things are the same" - Putting all the Stuff People Do in the same statblock format does not make them the same.  Actually playing the game teaches you this.

Balance drove you away - Yeah, not much to be said about that.  Those of us who didn't like sitting on the sidelines while the wizard ended the fight in one round while never having the opportunity to do the same are not going to ever come to terms with your viewpoint.  And given that, the solution is to start with a balanced game.  It's vastly, vastly simpler for you to houserule your game to be unbalanced than it is for me to houserule my game to make it balanced.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It's vastly, vastly simpler for you to houserule your game to be unbalanced than it is for me to houserule my game to make it balanced.



That's a good looking sentence right there.
I just hope it's easy for new people to get into. I haven't played for a long time but I remember it being very complicated. I remember I needed help just making a character. 
What I find most frustrating is that most of your perceptions about 4e are superficial and inaccurate.  I do wish people in general had more tolerance for initially off-putting things to actually get down to what the system's really about.

"wizard" now meant "blaster" - Completely untrue.  Some wizards are blasters, sure.  But you could do that in prior editions.

"fighter" now meant "melee" - If by this you mean that the ranged variant of fighter is gone, then that's valid.  If you meant that fighters don't have a unique spot to fill like the one they did before...I'd disagree.

"things are the same" - Putting all the Stuff People Do in the same statblock format does not make them the same.  Actually playing the game teaches you this.

Balance drove you away - Yeah, not much to be said about that.  Those of us who didn't like sitting on the sidelines while the wizard ended the fight in one round while never having the opportunity to do the same are not going to ever come to terms with your viewpoint.  And given that, the solution is to start with a balanced game.  It's vastly, vastly simpler for you to houserule your game to be unbalanced than it is for me to houserule my game to make it balanced.



I will admit that my 4e play experience comes from the playetest and the original release, so I'm not familiar with anything after the initial 3 books.  But, I saw no way to, for example, create a wizard who doesn't use direct damage to fight.  Nearly all the wizard powers in PHB 1 do damage.  That's what I mean by "blaster."

I did mean that the ability of fighters to be either ranged or competent switch hitters was gone.  The common reply of "just play a ranger" is exactly what I mean about redefining words.

It isn't so much that balance drove us away as the exact method by which balance was acheived.  I'd a like a more dynamic, complicated balance.  I don't want fighters to feel useless, I want them to feel awesome - sometimes.  I want everyone to feel awesome - sometimes.   "Everyone awesome all of the time" rapidly becomes "everyone meh all of the time."  Each class needs moments where it can stand out and be the spotlight.  Not everyone needs to have something important to do each round.

One more thing I'd like to see is a revision to monsters.  I'm not talking about the math intensive 3.5e way (although that is fine), but I'd at least like there to be some sense of where a monster's stats are coming from other than abstract game mechanics.  One of the things that demonstrated 4e was not for me was when I was putting together a basic goblin lair to demo the game for some friends.  I decided to put some magic armor in there, and in fine D&D tradition, decided that the goblin chief should be wearing it.  I then spent about half an hour reading books trying to figure out how in the world to adjust the cheif's AC to account for the new armor, before finally realizing that his AC was based on his level and role, not his equipment.  Ugh.

All I'm trying to do here is explain why I drifted away from D&D in the first place.  It seems to me and to my local group that 5e is an attempt to regain some of the players who quit during the 4e era.  I am one of those players, I moved on to other systems after more than 20 years of playing D&D.  4e was the first edition I didn't convert to because it was the first time I felt that conversion, while maintaining the spirit of the old system, was impossible. 



I will admit that my 4e play experience comes from the playetest and the original release, so I'm not familiar with anything after the initial 3 books.  But, I saw no way to, for example, create a wizard who doesn't use direct damage to fight.  Nearly all the wizard powers in PHB 1 do damage.  That's what I mean by "blaster."




While most 4e wizard powers do have some damage, it is usually not a significant enough amount and the control aspects of the power are far more important. I can understand this argument a bit, though. If you really just want to give effects and never, ever do damage that is hard to do in 4e. I'm not sure if wizards have an encounter power that doesn't do damage though they do now have an at-will wall spell and a lot of excellent control heavy daily spells that have no damage aspect to them. The truth though is that a lot of the best control in the edition for wizards does have damage along with it (Wall of Fire, Flaming Sphere). You could minimize your damage output and focus up your control aspect through things like Enlarge Spell, but that wasn't out until Arcane Power.

I think the reason for this had to do with 4e's HP math, which was not very good during PHB1 anyway. What it comes down to is a damage race, the difference being the Wizard got to do stuff other than damage while still doing damage and most classes had ways to do that as well.

I do like the concept of a non-damaging Wizard, I'm going to have to look into that for some future buiilds.
It's vastly, vastly simpler for you to houserule your game to be unbalanced than it is for me to houserule my game to make it balanced.



That's a good looking sentence right there.



Here's another:

NO ONE should have to significantly houserule a game system to make it playable. If they do, they won't purchase it. Period.




In an ideal world, sure.  But balance isn't one of those negotiable, equivalent, hey-let's-all-play spheres.  When you're talking about balance, you are talking about the core system math:  the numbers that affect your d20 rolls that tell you how well your character does.  You cannot have two adjacent, parallel sets of system math within one system.  You will just have two systems.

For comparison, let's take another hot-button topic like Vancian casting.  I can make a Vancian wizard, and I can make a non-Vancian wizard.  Both of them use the same math, and both are playable.  Both can even sit down at the same table, say "Hi, I'm a Wizard!" and have a good time.  That's a situation where both "sides" can get exactly what they want.

Balance is not a topic, though, that has common ground.  The system can't accommodate a difference in the base, fundamental assumptions about how characters are supposed to interact with the system.  One of us is going to be unhappy, and given that, the solution is to go with the one with the lower negative impact.  It's trivial to unbalance a balanced system, but it's a colossal undertaking to balance an unbalanced one.  I mean, let's assume that 4e is balanced at first level for this purpose.  I can unbalance it easily:  Wizards can cast level 29 daily spells at-will.  Done.  Unbalanced.  It's an impossible task, on a practical sense, to take something like 3e and balance it according to 4e's standards.

If you've followed my posting history on Next at all, you'll know I am all for expanding possibilities.  But sometimes the line has to be drawn, and that line is at the core system math and fundamental philosophies about the relationships between characters.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
One more thing I'd like to see is a revision to monsters.  I'm not talking about the math intensive 3.5e way (although that is fine), but I'd at least like there to be some sense of where a monster's stats are coming from other than abstract game mechanics.  One of the things that demonstrated 4e was not for me was when I was putting together a basic goblin lair to demo the game for some friends.  I decided to put some magic armor in there, and in fine D&D tradition, decided that the goblin chief should be wearing it.  I then spent about half an hour reading books trying to figure out how in the world to adjust the cheif's AC to account for the new armor, before finally realizing that his AC was based on his level and role, not his equipment.  Ugh.



Actually, as per the DMG all monsters have a magic threshold, which you subtract from a magical item's bonuses before adding those bonuses to the monster, DMG page 174.  It also gives reasons why, such that it's expected that a monster of X level is going to have a certain attack bonus, so while you elite cool monster can have the cool armor, that armor is like giving it more "levels", and thus it might just be easier to hand a monster the extra levels to go along with it's magical benefits, unless what you're looking for is an unusually tough monster for the level it is.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
What I find most frustrating is that most of your perceptions about 4e are superficial and inaccurate.  I do wish people in general had more tolerance for initially off-putting things to actually get down to what the system's really about.

"things are the same" - Putting all the Stuff People Do in the same statblock format does not make them the same.  Actually playing the game teaches you this.


Balance drove you away - Yeah, not much to be said about that.  Those of us who didn't like sitting on the sidelines while the wizard ended the fight in one round while never having the opportunity to do the same are not going to ever come to terms with your viewpoint.  And given that, the solution is to start with a balanced game.  It's vastly, vastly simpler for you to houserule your game to be unbalanced than it is for me to houserule my game to make it balanced.



I actually played the game, and we had a rogue and ranger that were so similar that they often used the same exact attacks with different flavortext. That was when I decided to quit 4E. 

If you couldn't create a kick-ass character who didn't rely on magic on your own, I feel bad for you son, cause I got 99 problems and bein' weak ain't one. Have you considered becoming an uber-tank with a Knight? I recall a friend of mine playing an epic-level swashbuckler with a prestige of some sort that was brokenly powerful. Of course, there's always the Frenzied Berserker, bane of the glass cannon, the unstoppable force. I have never had a problem with my players becoming underpowered. Occasionally I had issues with them being undercreative though.

Also, as a DM, I actually find it to be the inverse. I enjoy bringing mechanics to the table, and I just tweak them as needed to get them to work right. It's easier for me to go from unbalanced to balanced than vice-versa. I find the slippery slope of unbalancing is hard to control.
I actually played the game, and we had a rogue and ranger that were so similar that they often used the same exact attacks with different flavortext. That was when I decided to quit 4E.



And...when did you decide to quit each of the previous editions of D&D that had even less difference in what you're actually doing in the round?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I will confess that I find that the task of trying to create a version of D&D that appeals to all fans past and present appears to be a daunting one.  I certainly don't see any easy way to make a system that attracts all fans.  The gulf that seems to be between pro- and anti-4e fans is often quite wide.  It just seems like there is a very different mindset between the sets of fans, and the types of games that appeal to them don't seem to overlap much.

I actually don't think 4e is a bad system.  I've had fun playing it.  It's just not what I turn to for regular roleplaying - I prefer not to use minis and not using minis with 4e cuts away about half the combat system.  If I want an evening of tactical fantasy combat I'm more likely to turn to Descent.

I shamelessly declare that I do hope 5e is more like editions previous to 4e, because I liked those editions.  I can even throw back at 4e fans what they said about 3.5 when 4e came out - it's not like WotC is going to come over to your house and take away all your books.  You'll still have your uber-edition.  Well, unless you never actually bought the books and only used the online resources, that might disappear.  But, people not buying books is (I assume) why they're making 5e so soon anyway.

Mand12, you seem awfully hostile.  I don't think you are going to convince anyone at this late stage to suddenly have an epiphany and turn to 4e if they don't already like it.  I agree that there actually are variations in powers between characters, but I also agree that at first approximation, they seem "samey" to people just starting.  Everything gives the initial impression of being a variant on [W]+str+push/pull/slide 1 square.

As far as giving 4e a fair chance, between the playtests and trying the game once it came out, I played about 10 four-hour sessions of 4e.  Forty hours was enough time for us to decide we'd rather not play it, and probably much longer than we would have given any game that wasn't D&D.  We weren't biased against it either, we were all super excited about playing - the game system itself drove us away.
Ryric, I can hear what you're saying, but I can also say that it is not a universal opinion. I've introduced a number of people, a couple whom were fairly hard-core pre-4e fans, a few who have never played the game at all, and a few who have only played non-DnD game systems, to 4e and not one of them feels that the it is too gamey, to samey, or that characters (including those who play PHB1 characters) are too similar in powers and play. A little background on me-- I've played every edition of DnD except ODnD (I started in about 1978-1979). I don't feel any animosity toward any of the editions, but I do like that 4e is more balanced (see my signature for what I think balance should mean); I didn't like my last 3.5 game where my druid, the cleric, and the wizard quickly became the focal point of every adventure because we could solve every problem we encountered with a spell, a wild shape, or a summoned ally, and the fighters, rogue, and others in the party felt superfluous.

I think we can agree that there has to be a way for WotC staff to make 5e balanced without necessarily losing what you feel is important and what 4e proponents feel is important about the game. It will be tough, of course, but they are smart people many of whom have done this for a very long time.

I don't think Mand12 is trying to be hostile. Mand is only trying to point out what appears, to him, to be errors in your comments as it relates to 4e. Maybe he could have presented them better, I don't know. But many people think that the classes in 4e do play differently; wizards abilities are primarily about control and do minimal damage (especially as compared to the Striker mage classes); and there are options for fighters to use ranged attacks -- but, granted, some of those options include using 'reskinned' other classes, like the ranger or rogue, to do so.

I am reserving judgment until next week when I will finally get my hands on play-test info and my group can finally take a look at it. From what I've read of those who have participated in early-beta play-tests, the edition, at least in combat areas, is shaping up to be something we can all get excited about-- you might not get everything from your initial list, and neither will I, but hopefully we both get enough from both of our lists that we can sit down at a table and game together successfully and both have lots of fun.

And, in the end, playing an RPG is simply about that-- getting together with friends and having fun.

*edited for a couple of typos 

Balance = Equally effective, but different, ways of reaching a goal or overcoming an obstacle.

What I find most frustrating is that most of your perceptions about 4e are superficial and inaccurate.  I do wish people in general had more tolerance for initially off-putting things to actually get down to what the system's really about.



That is the common cop out.  Many of us do play 4e and STILL feel this way.  I run 4e and I can't say the classes play all that much different when it boils right down to it.  There are differences, but withing the 'roles' the classes do play quite the same.  I'm OK with that it is the machinery at work.


"fighter" now meant "melee" - If by this you mean that the ranged variant of fighter is gone, then that's valid.  If you meant that fighters don't have a unique spot to fill like the one they did before...I'd disagree.



I disagree with the role that the FIGHTER is FORCED to fill in 4e.  Its a good class, and I have never played a SLAYER, but it seems to me there was effort to pidgeon hole the fighter into TANK. 

"things are the same" - Putting all the Stuff People Do in the same statblock format does not make them the same.  Actually playing the game teaches you this.



I would go along with saying there are categories of powers that all play the same regardless of class.  That's probably how it is supposed to work though.


Balance drove you away - Yeah, not much to be said about that.  Those of us who didn't like sitting on the sidelines while the wizard ended the fight in one round while never having the opportunity to do the same are not going to ever come to terms with your viewpoint.  And given that, the solution is to start with a balanced game.  It's vastly, vastly simpler for you to houserule your game to be unbalanced than it is for me to houserule my game to make it balanced.



Balance is a matter of degree.  There is nobody that wants no balance at all.  I think 4e went way to far to one end of the spectrum and alot of it was lost.  Playing for several months in 2008, and now running undermountain and several Dungeon adventures, I definitely feel that the game took balance to far.  We are not playing City of Heroes with a PVP component. 

It amazes some, but many players never had to deal with being bored playing a fighter or rogue while their friend played a druid.  I think the balance of 4e caused more losses than actual gains.  THis paradigm shift was also the excuse to destroy fluff that worked for so many other editions, and would not have made 4e play any worse, just as the new fluff does not make it play better.

The purpose of many players that feel the same way as the person that started this thread, want to input the opinion that 4e slid to the far end of the spectrum of balance, and that it is not necessary to have a game like this, be completely balanced for combat.  THere are other aspects of the game with which to add balance, not combat alone.

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
I actually played the game, and we had a rogue and ranger that were so similar that they often used the same exact attacks with different flavortext. That was when I decided to quit 4E.



And...when did you decide to quit each of the previous editions of D&D that had even less difference in what you're actually doing in the round?



Wasn't necessary because he felt the other was a good game.  Ranger and rogue did not play the same in the other game as well.  Maybe the SCOUT kit did.

Why is it that because someone doesn't like 4e they are judged as too just flat out reject it?  4e is not a panacea.  it is not the edition that all players will play "once they get it."  I play it, and I feel it is not as good as any of the previous editions from a playing or DMIng standpoint.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
It's not a cop-out.  It doesn't matter if you've played the system for ages if you never scratched the surface when doing so.  Your comments appear, to me, to be superficial, barely-substantiated, and generally inaccurate.  You're not the first to have done so, and you won't be the last, but saying t

Fighters have some of the higher damage builds, despite not being strikers.  In fact, several of them capitalize on the mark mechanic a core part of their damage output.  Hell, a very large chunk of the highest damage builds end up multiclassing Fighter for access to their extremely good damage support via feats and paragon paths.  This example is precisely what I mean when I say your comments are superficial:  you read "Defender" in the class stat block, wrote them off as TANK, and didn't actually explore their potential - you even say that the fighter is "FORCED," when that's simply not the case.  This is particularly egregious with the Fighter, since out of all classes in the game I'd rank it number one, without question, at support for a secondary role.  And that's even before we get to the slayer, which to be honest is something I barely consider part of the fighter class.  Now, did WotC do a poor job of presenting that in PHB1, which turned you off?  Absolutely.  PHB1's presentation was terrible, it was barely complete as a system, and it has some glaring weaknesses.  But you need to be careful that your criticisms are about initial presentation rather than the system as a whole if that's the case.


Whether there are people who didn't care about being constantly overshadowed doesn't mean that they weren't constantly overshadowed.  Whether there are people who didn't care about being constantly overshadowed doesn't mean that it's acceptable for people who do care about being constantly overshadowed to be constantly overshadowed.  Your anecdote is irrelevant from a game design perspective.

And again, balance is easily breakable, but hardly fixable.  And yes, they are mutually exclusive.  The system cannot be simultaneously balanced and unbalanced.  You can choose to ignore parts of it to give the appearance of flexibility, but that's just an illusion.


D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Why is it that because someone doesn't like 4e they are judged as too just flat out reject it?  4e is not a panacea.  it is not the edition that all players will play "once they get it."  I play it, and I feel it is not as good as any of the previous editions from a playing or DMIng standpoint.



Agreed, it is not a perfect system, it is not a system that everyone will like, and it's perfectly fine to express your dissatisfaction with it.  What's not as cool is to do so while demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the things you're complaining about.  I can't tell you how many times people have posted here saying "I didn't like 4e, personally.  I really wish it had done THIS."  To which people responded "....but it does that."  Same with the converse, saying "I didn't like 4e, I wish they didn't do that" when 4e didn't, actually, do that.  Things like "discourage roleplaying" fall into that category. 

If you're going to criticize something and expect to have your criticisms taken seriously, the burden is on you to ensure that you're actually making a valid complaint.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It's not a cop-out.  It doesn't matter if you've played the system for ages if you never scratched the surface when doing so.  Your comments appear, to me, to be superficial, barely-substantiated, and generally inaccurate.  You're not the first to have done so, and you won't be the last, but saying t

Fighters have some of the higher damage builds, despite not being strikers.  In fact, several of them capitalize on the mark mechanic a core part of their damage output.  Hell, a very large chunk of the highest damage builds end up multiclassing Fighter for access to their extremely good damage support via feats and paragon paths.  This example is precisely what I mean when I say your comments are superficial:  you read "Defender" in the class stat block, wrote them off as TANK, and didn't actually explore their potential - you even say that the fighter is "FORCED," when that's simply not the case.  This is particularly egregious with the Fighter, since out of all classes in the game I'd rank it number one, without question, at support for a secondary role.  And that's even before we get to the slayer, which to be honest is something I barely consider part of the fighter class.  Now, did WotC do a poor job of presenting that in PHB1, which turned you off?  Absolutely.  PHB1's presentation was terrible, it was barely complete as a system, and it has some glaring weaknesses.  But you need to be careful that your criticisms are about initial presentation rather than the system as a whole if that's the case.


Whether there are people who didn't care about being constantly overshadowed doesn't mean that they weren't constantly overshadowed.  Whether there are people who didn't care about being constantly overshadowed doesn't mean that it's acceptable for people who do care about being constantly overshadowed to be constantly overshadowed.  Your anecdote is irrelevant from a game design perspective.

And again, balance is easily breakable, but hardly fixable.  And yes, they are mutually exclusive.  The system cannot be simultaneously balanced and unbalanced.  You can choose to ignore parts of it to give the appearance of flexibility, but that's just an illusion.





You say its not a cop out.  THat is fine, but not convincing.

You have system mastery of a game you like.  I have system mastery of the games I like.  Again that does not get us anywhere.

My opinion that classes play the same is not invalidated because you tell me to give it more time.  I have given it alot of time.  The classes did not play differently enough for me to keep trying different possibilities that are hidden deep within the rules. 

No, I did not write the fighter off as TANK.  My EXPERIENCE tells me that is what they are.  Your EXPERIENCE tells you different.  I am reporting what I have experienced. 

You have explored in greater depth.  That is fantastic, but if the game cannot INSPIRE other players to explore at a greater depth where does that get it?  I have explored just as deeply as any other system I try and play for months totalling a year.

No my analysis is not superficial.  I do not read TAGS and analyze, I play and analyze.  I don't claim to have system mastery of 4e.  I make this analysis as a very competent player and DM.  I am STILL playing 4e now, discovering things all the time about it.  My initial thoughts on it have changed.  I do not think it superior however, and I run it for a group that I am basically FORCING to play (In that I am running that right now and they want me to DM)>

The mantra seems to be as follows:  4e will prove to be the best game for anyone but ONLY if you really give it an honest shot.  If you don't like the game you did not give it an honest shot. 

For many gamers 4e just does not work as well for them.







CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!


If you're going to criticize something and expect to have your criticisms taken seriously, the burden is on you to ensure that you're actually making a valid complaint.


On this we can absolutely agree.


CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
I am not saying 4e will prove to be the best game for anyone but ONLY if you give it an honest shot.  I am saying that your complaints demonstrate a reliance on incomplete or incorrect information.  Whether you gave it an honest shot or not is irrelevant, if your claims are inaccurate and superficial then your criticisms as a whole aren't particularly useful.  Sure, your experience tells you that a fighter is a tank and only a tank, but if your experience is limited and doesn't accurately represent the fighter as a whole, then your assertions can't be correct.

You seem to be getting rather defensive about this, and I'm not clear why.  Many of your statements are demonstrably, factually incorrect, yet you still claim that they're valid.  I do
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I am not saying 4e will prove to be the best game for anyone but ONLY if you give it an honest shot.  I am saying that your complaints demonstrate a reliance on incomplete or incorrect information.  Whether you gave it an honest shot or not is irrelevant, if your claims are inaccurate and superficial then your criticisms as a whole aren't particularly useful.  Sure, your experience tells you that a fighter is a tank and only a tank, but if your experience is limited and doesn't accurately represent the fighter as a whole, then your assertions can't be correct.

You seem to be getting rather defensive about this, and I'm not clear why.  Many of your statements are demonstrably, factually incorrect, yet you still claim that they're valid.  I do



Every system has possibilities.

So now your 4e games run great and you have discovered almost everything about it.  Another person for what ever reason may not have discovered the possibilities that you have. 

If someone plays the game, then draws a conclusion that you know can be fixed with your greater experience it does not mean that their criticism is INVALID.  It means you report how that might be fixed.

If I am riding an ATV and I roll it everytime I attempt a particular turn in sloped terrain, yet you know how to navigate that turn from experience, it does not invalidate my criticism of ATV riding in specific terrain. 

Maybe there are tricks I need to learn.  That is fine for ATV's but it is not for a game system in which you would have to invest significant amounts of time to discover.  There are many people that played 4e and feel it is homogenized (I don't), but their criticism is rooted in a testable experience.

Criticising 4e as an anti roleplaying game is not defendable.  Anyone that plays 4e honestly will see that is not true.  There are many players that I know that thinks classes play the same after months of honest effort.

Is that their fault or the systems, or a mix of both?  In any case it doesn't matter, and they move on to the game they like more.





CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
I did report on how your criticisms might be fixed, and you jumped on me for doing so. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I did report on how your criticisms might be fixed, and you jumped on me for doing so. 



It is more the suggestion that, intentionally or not, it seemed assumed that in order to come to the conclusion that classes played the same or whatever the original point was, they could only be looking at it from a superficial point, and not thinking it through.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Alright, I'm going to defend the overpower spellcasters in 3.5e. 

After looking at 4e and being a long 3.5e player. I'm alright with the 3.5e system. Why? Because it reward people for raising that weak lv1 wizard into a nuke bot of death. 

Spellcasters are high targets. Low hit points and AC exchange for high attack and support. If a barbarian went full attack then the wizard is dead. As far as I know, the spellcasters were the first to die, because of the threat they are in battle. 

At high level the stakes are even higher. If the spellcaster dies from something like bad luck then the quest is going to be a lot harder then you used to. 

The spellcaster main goal is support to make the battle a lot easier. If you didn't left your sword during the battle that means the spellcaster is doing his job really good. 

And for that reason why I traded my greatsword for +2 Pom Poms. 

 
I did report on how your criticisms might be fixed, and you jumped on me for doing so. 



It is more the suggestion that, intentionally or not, it seemed assumed that in order to come to the conclusion that classes played the same or whatever the original point was, they could only be looking at it from a superficial point, and not thinking it through.





I didn't assume that you were looking at it from a superficial point of view, I said that your comments indicated that you were looking at it from a superficial point of view.  I stand by that claim, and point to your significant mischaracterization of the 4e fighter as evidence to support that claim.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
What I find most frustrating is that most of your perceptions about 4e are superficial and inaccurate.  I do wish people in general had more tolerance for initially off-putting things to actually get down to what the system's really about.



That is the common cop out.  Many of us do play 4e and STILL feel this way.  I run 4e and I can't say the classes play all that much different when it boils right down to it.  There are differences, but withing the 'roles' the classes do play quite the same.  I'm OK with that it is the machinery at work.


I have to agree with Mand - the fact that some 4E classes fulfilling the same role can feel very similar doesn't mean that all classes play the same, nor does it address the basic fact that 4E provides more potential for class variety than any previous edition.
While 4e did bring some good ideas to the game table it suffered from the "let's replicate an mmo" problem. 3e and 3.5 were both amazing and loved by vetrans of the D&D gaming experience, heck Paizo used 3.5 as template for their Pathfinder role playing game. D&D started a cascade of different types of rpgs, mmos being the most recent; games like White Wolf's World of Darkness, which while having less than satisfactory dice dynamics for some actively encouraged the players to take their their roles in a form that was bit more involved when compared to the rule sets of previous games, and Steve Jackson Games's GURPS, which has a character creation system so involved that getting a basic character done in less than an hour should might as well be listed on your file geek accomplishments in addition to have several dice based dynamics that actually do work, the point I'm making is that the design 4e, while making the game more accessible for newbie player also caused something like an alienation many of the veterans of the prior editions. While making the 5th edition the teams for developing the game should at least try some of the RPGs out there and see what kind of things that these games different and actually worked and try and bring those dynamics to D&D in a way that won't offend anyone for an extended period of time. I know there are RPGs that just sucked out loud like Fantasy Flight Games's Fireborn, while the concept behind the game was nice and different it suffered from poor execution, Fantasy Flight Games only had experience with making game modules before they tried a venture into the Role Playing market, the rule books are inconsitent and completely change or omit information that was in other sections of the books, it shows what happens when the teams didn't really communicate with each other, I mean the idea behind the game was amazing, who wouldn't want to play a reincarnated dragon regaining their abilities and memories in the modern world, and to their credit they do provide a lot of variety for creation of your modern character and dragon, what fails is after the character creation, they did provide a lot of cool concepts I just wish the teams for crating each section of the book had taken the time to actually talk to each other before the printing process had begun. What I'm trying to get at is that while trying to bring new materials to D&D the team should look back and say what did we do right with the prior editions and how can we make them better, I'm all for streamlining the game, but removing pieces of the core aspects with no real explination is stupid. Lawful Good, Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful, Unaligned, Chaotic, Lawful Evil, Evil, and Chaotic Evil is how the alignment system should have changed if it wasn't gooing to be expanded; if you want to go the other route then just abandon the alignment system all together, don't do the half-assed alignment restructure that 4e tried to utilize.
While 4e did bring some good ideas to the game table it suffered from the "let's replicate an mmo" problem.


No it didn't.  It didn't try to replicate an mmo, it didn't replicate an mmo, and it's still not even close to a mmo.  Tired old completely unsupportable claim slandering things like WoW as It's Popular Now It Sucks, and then applying that originally questionable insult to something else they don't like for other inarticulate reasons.

The same tired examples that get brought up again and again are that 4e put names to roles - tank, healer, dps holy trininty --> defender, leader, striker, controller - while ignoring the fact that roles have always existed in D&D, even when they weren't named; encounter/daily limitations on non-magic-using classes - while ignoring the fact that X/day was highly prevalent among such classes in prior editions, etc, etc, etc.

Sure, 4e as a modern game has incorporated many of the modern developments in game design:  avoiding unnecessary complexity, focusing on a balanced, enjoyable experience for all people who choose to play, concepts of meaningful choice, etc.  But that doesn't make it a mmo, or make it trying to be a mmo.

Also, people who are, as you put it, alienated by newbies having a good time, I direct you to It's Popular Now It Sucks again, specifically the picture.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I did report on how your criticisms might be fixed, and you jumped on me for doing so. 



It is more the suggestion that, intentionally or not, it seemed assumed that in order to come to the conclusion that classes played the same or whatever the original point was, they could only be looking at it from a superficial point, and not thinking it through.





I didn't assume that you were looking at it from a superficial point of view, I said that your comments indicated that you were looking at it from a superficial point of view.  I stand by that claim, and point to your significant mischaracterization of the 4e fighter as evidence to support that claim.



The evidence you provided to the contrary was not all that convincing.  OK so I need to find the right paragon paths and the right combination of feats, THAN it is no longer pigeon holed in the defender role.  Got it.

If YOU think I am looking at superficially I am OK with that.  As long as the designers of D&D NExt know that people think the classes play the same after giving them an honest try (like me), perhaps then D&D can be designed more to the game I would like to buy.  SO I am OK if you think I was wrong, as long as the designers know that I, and many like me think classes are too similar to each other.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!


The same tired examples that get brought up again and again are that 4e put names to roles - tank, healer, dps holy trininty --> defender, leader, striker, controller - while ignoring the fact that roles have always existed in D&D, even when they weren't named; encounter/daily limitations on non-magic-using classes - while ignoring the fact that X/day was highly prevalent among such classes in prior editions, etc, etc, etc.

Sure, 4e as a modern game has incorporated many of the modern developments in game design:  avoiding unnecessary complexity, focusing on a balanced, enjoyable experience for all people who choose to play, concepts of meaningful choice, etc.  But that doesn't make it a mmo, or make it trying to be a mmo.



No it just took the design ideas from MMO's and used them.  It is how you get people unfamiliar with table topping into the table top game. 

The ROLES in D&D were never as narrowly defined as they are in 4e and city of heroes or wow or anything like that.  Your fighter was not always the defender, the rogue and ranger were not always the damage dealer, the wizard was not always the controller.  Perhaps after the criticism was leveled at 4e Roles they changed some of it, but ultimately the party interaction is defined by the COMBAT roles.  The roles of 4e do not match the 'roles' of earlier editions.

That is where they started pigeon holing.  That is what alot of gamers object to.  I am sure there is a supersecret that makes this untrue, but as far as many gamers are concerened, this is ONE reason that they did not adopt the game.  So saying that D&D always had roles is as disingenuous as saying 4e is an MMO.


CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Your fighter was not always the defender, the rogue and ranger were not always the damage dealer, the wizard was not always the controller.

All that is still true in 4e.

You can make striker-fighters. (or play the slayer, which is specificly a striker-fighter).
You can make defender-rogues. (or play the beskerer, which is specificly a defender-barbarian).
You can make controler-rangers.  (or play the hunter-ranger, which is specificly a controler-ranger).
You can even make a wizard who charges around with a big 2-handed weapon.

So no, they are not any more pigonholed then before.  If anything, classes in 4e are more open.


*Though turning a non-leader into a leader is quite a bit harder to pull off....

5e houserules and tweaks.

Celestial Link Evoking Radiance into Creation

A Party Without Music is Lame: A Bard

Level Dip Guide

 

4e stuff

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Your fighter was not always the defender, the rogue and ranger were not always the damage dealer, the wizard was not always the controller.

All that is still true in 4e.

You can make striker-fighters. (or play the slayer, which is specificly a striker-fighter).
You can make defender-rogues. (or play the beskerer, which is specificly a defender-barbarian).
You can make controler-rangers.  (or play the hunter-ranger, which is specificly a controler-ranger).
You can even make a wizard who charges around with a big 2-handed weapon.

So no, they are not any more pigonholed then before.  If anything, classes in 4e are more open.


*Though turning a non-leader into a leader is quite a bit harder to pull off....




They are not any more pigeon holed NOW.  They certainly were at first go.  The rest is probably smart reaction to the criticism of the early game which is as it should be.

If you enter the character builder the starting option is just to build a character starting with ROLE.  Role is used to define a character much more in 4e than it was previously.  Was the rogue the scrapper in previous editions?  What was the bard's role?  Was he a leader?  A controller?  Neither of these have a definite answer.  Was my wizard with a fireball, and cone of cold a striker or a controller? NOW the classes all have a definite answer as to their role.

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
They are not any more pigeon holed NOW.  They certainly were at first go.  The rest is probably smart reaction to the criticism of the early game which is as it should be.

True...  ish.  While you couldn't turn a warlock into a defender yet, the PHB1 hardly pigonholed you into pure roles.

Fighter -> strikerish defender
Paladin -> Leaderish defender
Ranger -> strikerish striker
Rogue -> striker with a touch of control
Warlock -> strikerish controler.  (it was mislabled*).
Wizard -> blaster striker (again, mislabled*)

*The warlock was a better controler and the wizard a better striker.

If you enter the character builder the starting option is just to build a character starting with ROLE.  Role is used to define a character much more in 4e than it was previously.

It's just a sorting mechanism.  So you don't have a list of 40 classes.  You have a list of 4, then a list of 10.

5e houserules and tweaks.

Celestial Link Evoking Radiance into Creation

A Party Without Music is Lame: A Bard

Level Dip Guide

 

4e stuff

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

They are not any more pigeon holed NOW.  They certainly were at first go.  The rest is probably smart reaction to the criticism of the early game which is as it should be.

True...  ish.  While you couldn't turn a warlock into a defender yet, the PHB1 hardly pigonholed you into pure roles.

Fighter -> strikerish defender
Paladin -> Leaderish defender
Ranger -> strikerish striker
Rogue -> striker with a touch of control
Warlock -> strikerish controler.  (it was mislabled*).
Wizard -> blaster striker (again, mislabled*)

*The warlock was a better controler and the wizard a better striker.

If you enter the character builder the starting option is just to build a character starting with ROLE.  Role is used to define a character much more in 4e than it was previously.

It's just a sorting mechanism.  So you don't have a list of 40 classes.  You have a list of 4, then a list of 10.



Ok fair enough

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
this is sortof my overall point 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
While 4e did bring some good ideas to the game table it suffered from the "let's replicate an mmo" problem.


No it didn't.  It didn't try to replicate an mmo, it didn't replicate an mmo, and it's still not even close to a mmo.  Tired old completely unsupportable claim slandering things like WoW as It's Popular Now It Sucks, and then applying that originally questionable insult to something else they don't like for other inarticulate reasons.

The same tired examples that get brought up again and again are that 4e put names to roles - tank, healer, dps holy trininty --> defender, leader, striker, controller - while ignoring the fact that roles have always existed in D&D, even when they weren't named; encounter/daily limitations on non-magic-using classes - while ignoring the fact that X/day was highly prevalent among such classes in prior editions, etc, etc, etc.

Sure, 4e as a modern game has incorporated many of the modern developments in game design:  avoiding unnecessary complexity, focusing on a balanced, enjoyable experience for all people who choose to play, concepts of meaningful choice, etc.  But that doesn't make it a mmo, or make it trying to be a mmo.

Also, people who are, as you put it, alienated by newbies having a good time, I direct you to It's Popular Now It Sucks again, specifically the picture.

I wasn't trying to offend you or anyone, I just meant it was like someone did poor job of translating an mmo into a tabletop game. As for the good elements I was talkin about I meant things like limiting the number of times you have to role in regards to fortitude and the like.
While 4e did bring some good ideas to the game table it suffered from the "let's replicate an mmo" problem.


No it didn't.  It didn't try to replicate an mmo, it didn't replicate an mmo, and it's still not even close to a mmo.  Tired old completely unsupportable claim slandering things like WoW as It's Popular Now It Sucks, and then applying that originally questionable insult to something else they don't like for other inarticulate reasons.

The same tired examples that get brought up again and again are that 4e put names to roles - tank, healer, dps holy trininty --> defender, leader, striker, controller - while ignoring the fact that roles have always existed in D&D, even when they weren't named; encounter/daily limitations on non-magic-using classes - while ignoring the fact that X/day was highly prevalent among such classes in prior editions, etc, etc, etc.

Sure, 4e as a modern game has incorporated many of the modern developments in game design:  avoiding unnecessary complexity, focusing on a balanced, enjoyable experience for all people who choose to play, concepts of meaningful choice, etc.  But that doesn't make it a mmo, or make it trying to be a mmo.

Also, people who are, as you put it, alienated by newbies having a good time, I direct you to It's Popular Now It Sucks again, specifically the picture.

I wasn't trying to offend you or anyone, I just meant it was like someone did poor job of translating an mmo into a tabletop game. As for the good elements I was talkin about I meant things like limiting the number of times you have to role in regards to fortitude and the like.

I also would like to point out how it was next to impossible to make custom classes with 4e
I grant that 4E classes play very different once one looks past the fact that every encounter you, roughly every round: move, roll for attack to do XdX+X damage + effect to 1+ creatures and that what do you is most often codified as a power that is explained on your character sheet.

DM-ing a 4E campaign with a group where attendance is sometimes a bit erradic (work, kids, courses etc.) I feel the difference between which role is missing that evening.

However, also grant that the fact that everone (even the illusionists and bards) has a move and roll attack do damage plus likely effect is a more uniform combat scenario than the previous editions. In the same way that scotch, rye, bourbon, irish or canadian are all the same because they're whisk(e)ys while they are very very different (from each other). The difference is more apparent if people are expecting a cocktail evening but getting a whisk(e)y tasting evening.

Grant that mechanically the resource managemt part of the game has gotten more uniform among the classes than the previous versions and then grant that those people that liked the diversity between classes in this respect have a point if they say that the classes have become samesy.

I wasn't trying to offend you or anyone, I just meant it was like someone did poor job of translating an mmo into a tabletop game.


This comment usually raises eyebrows (and maybe blood pressure) among people who have actually played both MMORPGS and 4E. I've put a lot of time into D&D and a fair amount into WoW (though I have quit the latter) and I see nothing more than a tiny superficial similarity, mostly in terminology, between the two. When the MMORPG criticism is presented without any substantial supporting detail, the critic sets himself up for a heavy dose of skepticism from knowledgable readers. "4E = WoW!" is a nice rallying point for people who lack experience with either game, but it doesn't communicate anything to someone like me, especially when I'm just supposed to take your claim as self-evident despite a large amount of experience that directly contradicts it.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.


DM-ing a 4E campaign with a group where attendance is sometimes a bit erradic (work, kids, courses etc.) I feel the difference between which role is missing that evening.


Role is part of it.. but I think the approach some classes take even within a role can be strikingly different... the I never miss avenger who wants to get the enemy to himself... with the divine hand fixing his mistakes and warding enemy attacks against him is very different than a slippery rogue who is conniving for position with the help of an ally ... than that ranger who sets back and shoots.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Hmm, maybe the point I've been making is that a lot of the game was sold poorly to established players.  I see a lot of 4e fans saying the initial impressions many 4e detractors have are based on a flawed, incomplete understanding of the game.  Fair enough.  But, that very same flawed undertsanding seems to be a common one.  It can therefore be concluded that 4e (at least the initial release) has the problem of being easily misunderstood/misinterpreted.  To quote one of my local group's GM, "I can't tell the types of stories I want to tell using this new system."  Is he wrong?  Almost surely.  But he still formed that opinion, even after trying the game with a positive attitude.  

Enough people got this kind of impression from the 4e PHB 1 that they never bothered to buy any more books, so any improvements made in later books might as well have not existed.  The initial release of 5e has to appeal to this kind of player if they want their customers from previous editions back.  I hope one of the items at the front of the developers' minds is "how can we make sure these kinds of misconceptions are not made again?"

My very first initial impression of the 4e PHB was "Where is everything? Where are all the classes and races I'm used to?  Where are all the spells and magic items I've come to expect from a product named D&D?  Where are my gnomes, druids, polymorph spells, bigby's hand spells, stone shape, rods/wands of wonder and apparatuses of kwalish?"  (to pick a bunch of stuff at random)

My (admittedly shallow) initial impression was that instead of fixing the problem areas with D&D they just threw them away.  "We can't figure out how to balance polymorph (wishes, druids, etc) so we just won't have it."

In order to sell me on 5e they will have to convince me that it contains all the elements of the game I want to play, elements included in every non-4e edition of the game so far. 
Sign In to post comments