4e pro's, con's, and opinions

468 posts / 0 new
Last post
Well here's a short list:

... But before you all get treated to griping 101, i'll tell you some things I do like.

Things that are sweet:

Dragonborn, I was skeptical, but they work out well as presented in 4E. Kudos

Warlord Class... again, awesome, just a great martial class with a lot of flavor.

Stealth-- by combining Hide w/ move silently WotC put an end to an annoying little gameplay issue that's been ******* off players since 2001. That could be considered minor but well earned praise if I hadn't been doing the same thing in my games since 2002.

Classes that are startlingly MIA:

Barbarian... a seriously cool class with a great little ability set, and a whole heap of flavor. Why not include it? I'll tell you why later, because the reason leads to the whole problem I'm currently having with 4E.

Bard, possibly my biggest grievance. Why is the bard gone? Because roleplaying doesn't matter anymore apparently. Yes, in combat the bard was virtually useless. But they had ridiculously high skills and great utility spells, as well as being a social character, perfect for that urban adventure. Who hasn't played the one where you throw your players in a locked up mansion and have them solve a fake murder that turns out to be real? That was the bard's bread and butter, social and urban roleplaying encounters. The failure of WotC to include bards simply proves that they don't care about the game or about roleplaying and just want to throw out a cheap POS product that will abandon it's niche and attempt to be a tactile substitute for flashy MMORPG's

Druid-- WotC, just because you're lazy and evil doesn't mean druids should suffer. This is a class that has been part of dnd since ADnD debuted, nearly 20 years, it's iconic, it's useful, I mean what is it? It's a cleric! It's a fighter! It's whatever you want it to be!!! Just because you had a brain fart and messed with the alignment system doesn't mean the druid should suffer. Additionally FYI, you really screwed up because it seems to me that the whole Feywild thing that you guys are going ape-**** for would have been a great mechanic and roleplaying element for the druid.

Monk, I can't be the only one who ever made a Bruce Lee rip-off monk right? This was just an amazing class, the perfect balance of skills to stand in for a rogue as the party's scout, a nice fighter, and hell they even had skills that could be used in a roleplaying adventure, then the ass to back it up when you hit the final encounter and everybody's low level and hasn't got crap for gear since you've been roleplaying, solving a mystery, or carrying on intrigues for the whole adventure!

Sorcerer (although I would argue that the Wizard is what's really MIA, since the 4E version looks an awful lot like a sorcerer to me)

Game elements that are MIA:

ROLEPLAYING!!! Correct me if I'm wrong but RPG stands for roleplaying game, and dnd is a "table top" RPG right? So where did all the roleplaying centric rules, skills, and game mechanics go?

Coherent tables that, believe it or not, when laid out like they were in 3.5 greatly simplfy... everything... I mean the defenses section, why not lay that out in a table format? It's simple but I still had to stare at it for like 10 minutes before it dawned on me what they were talking about, that I liked it, and that it made perfect sense.

Races that are MIA:

Half-Orc... ok, you've got orcs, you've got humans, you've got elves, you've got half-elves, why not half-orcs? you can't kick a great race a bone with maybe a page worth of info so that people can play another staple race?

Gnome if you're going to pretend that you showed the halfling the love they deserved when you really just made them tiny humans with a little culture of their own why can't you pull your head out of your ass for 40 seconds and do the same for the gnomes? I mean in the MM they seem to have been completely redefined as creatures of the feywild, great, so why not throw in some of the details on what that means in the PHB?

Missing Monsters:

... Where the hell are the metallic dragons in the MM? Is that a big deal to anyone else? Metallic dragons have been there since the game started... and the players handbook clearly talks about them, and notes that they're there, so why aren't they in the MM?

Frost Giants... again, they've been there since dnd started... why do they not show up in the MM?

Broken Stuff:

Halflings... where's the challenge of playing a halfling if the only downside is that they are going to do slightly less damage than a human of the same class? And what's the point of playing them for roleplaying flavor if the roleplaying elements of the game have been marginalized? Hey!!! look at me! I'm a really short guy!!! ... great...

Rogues... in 3E if i wanted a slick skilled fighter who relied on fancy bladework and agility I would have statted out a fighter that way. In 4E i'll just play a rogue!!! honestly I flipped through all 9 odd pages of rogue "class powers" and saw maybe 5 that weren't combat oriented

"Wizards" the whole point of playing a wizard over a sorcerer in 3E was the sheer volume of spells and specialties that you had access to. Your wizard could be damn near anything, just based on what spells you chose to learn, not to mention getting into specialties. Wizards literally had the power to do damn near anything at higher levels, and at lower levels they were a challenge to play because of thier limited sturdiness. They were my favorite class, I could accomplish almost anything with them, but I had to stick with it and wait for the payoffs at high levels to do so. Looking at the 4E "wizard" makes me sick, they're useless, for reasons I won't even begin going into, unless someone asks. The severity of my disappointment on this point has robbed me of my ability to even gripe about it.

Skills, where did all the knowledge go? from what I can tell the new skills basically mean that as long as my character rolls high enough he can know anything. That's like asking a history teacher to solve a calculus problem, more than likely he's going to look at you and pull a stupid face, why? because he's a history teacher, ask him about the revolutionary war and you'll get an answer. But this new system wants to say that just because your character is intelligent he can know just about anything,

Powers + Feats... I don't ever want to hear WotC complain about overpowered characters again. Everybody gets powers yay! but wait, we're going to give them all feats too! The problem being most obvious in the fighter. Most of the feats are straight from 3.5E, and if the fighter worked on feats alone there why the hell should they have both feats and powers in this? doesn't that seem excessive?

overall layout and presentation of the core rulebooks

Things that don't make sense:

Eladrin... if it looks like an elf, acts like an elf, and smells like an elf then it's a damn elf.
Let's compare shall we? What's the difference between elves and eladrin... flavor, that's it! nothing else. Both are considered fey creatures, so stop trying to do away with a system that worked fine, bring back the friggin subraces if you want to spice things up.

Halflings... ok, so the only difference in 4E is that... they can't wield the same size weapons as everyone else?

The new alignment system, way to screw us out of the druid. Aside from that, I mean... really? What was wrong with the old alignment system? It was a loose guideline for players to provide a moral baseline to their characters roleplaying actions. Only douchebags and *******s used the alignment they selected as an excuse for their laziness when it comes to roleplaying, and quite frankly WotC that's an issue for thier DM to solve, not you... so get your meddling dorito-cheese coated **** fondlers (hands) away from my table!!!! I for one am not a retard, nor am I lazy and can thankfully say the same of my players, therefore I'll stick with the old rules.

All in all it seems to me like 4E is a shoddy product that was rushed to market to make some quick cash, I firmly believe that there will be a 4.5E within the next two years, prompting us all to fork over even more cash to a bunch of jackasses who no longer seem to have any consideration for the game that we love. It's unfortunate really since 3.5E has just come into it's own over the last 3 years and could have continued to milk cash out of me for some time to come. In the end though as long as I'm able to ***** in a place where the "chaotic evil" (according to the new and old alignment system) employees of WotC can hear me and possibly feel some kind of self-loathing thanks to my pointed criticism I'll still keep forking it over while I get "forked" because I love dnd.
/signed for the most part

I can make peace with some things in 4th edition but I agree with your general consensus here. 4th edition isn't so much bad for what IS included, but what is wrong with it is wha has been left out. When I read the books I feel like Chapters are missing, as if someone handed me a beta copy or something with parts of the game still in development.

To me the biggest omission is skills. As it stands there is so much that you simply can't do and I agree with you that many of these roleplaying oriented things have been over marginalized. It might not be a story breaking thing to know whether or not a person can sing, craft armor or survive in the wilderness but as a GM all they have done by omitting these rules is force me to create them and while I have come to expect having to adjust or create rules as a GM, I feel like I have to create a whole chapters to these books to make the game playable.

Its unfortunate the direction 4th edition has taken D&D, my local groups here the game has already been abandoned and isnt likely to see the light of day.

My Blog (The Gamers Think Tank)

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

See I find myself personally liberated when it comes to things like crafting and singing. Since it means in character creation, I can focus on and pick the trained skills that would govern such things, and thus simply have such things like craft and perform be done as Skill Challenges involving such skills.

Craft = Lets say Blacksmithing: Athletics, Endurance and some form of knowledge say History, Religion, Arcana (magical weapons)

Perform = Dance: Acrobatics, Singing: Bluff, etc.

Surviving in the wilderness, well that is just Nature anyways.

As for the things omitted, I personally love Bards. But I rather they leave things out so they can focus on things they have in and make it work well, then shove everything in and have it work poorly.
Oh no! 4e isn't exactly like 3e! Whatever shall we do?!?!?!
ROLEPLAYING!!! Correct me if I'm wrong but RPG stands for roleplaying game, and dnd is a "table top" RPG right? So where did all the roleplaying centric rules, skills, and game mechanics go?

Since when did we need rules for roleplaying? Remember, its "role"playing, not "roll"playing. Roleplaying is imagination-based. I never needed a table, chart, or splatbook to have my PC be good at fishing. Or have an inquisitive nature. Or be bad at socializing with the girls. Or good at painting. If it's a skill that might have a game-altering consequence if you fail at it, then by all means, have a table or die roll that covers it. If it's fluff in the game, it really doesn't need rules to cover it. Does it?
Since when did we need rules for roleplaying? Remember, its "role"playing, not "roll"playing. Roleplaying is imagination-based. I never needed a table, chart, or splatbook to have my PC be good at fishing. Or have an inquisitive nature. Or be bad at socializing with the girls. Or good at painting. If it's a skill that might have a game-altering consequence if you fail at it, then by all means, have a table or die roll that covers it. If it's fluff in the game, it really doesn't need rules to cover it. Does it?

It's not even an issue of skill based stuff, your first sentence says it all.

Where in 3/3.5 are the "rules" for role playing? Because I don't remember ever reading them.
It's not even an issue of skill based stuff, your first sentence says it all.

Where in 3/3.5 are the "rules" for role playing? Because I don't remember ever reading them.

Well you like many are a Zen RP Master. Think about what you "DO" and you will find the rules.

GAMMA WORLD Wuv D&D: Beyond the RPG - Transcript This is a complete transcript. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22329697?sdb=1&pg=last#390668593 The audio file is in this News Archive http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/DNDXP 2010 D&D Product Overview (47 minutes into the Audio) http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22329697?sdb=1&pg=last#390928045
i tend to see caster players upset at 4th and non caster players love it. AS a dm i like what ive read mostly, but havnt played it yet.
It's not even an issue of skill based stuff, your first sentence says it all.

Where in 3/3.5 are the "rules" for role playing? Because I don't remember ever reading them.

That's my point. Boggler65 stated: "ROLEPLAYING!!! Correct me if I'm wrong but RPG stands for roleplaying game, and dnd is a "table top" RPG right? So where did all the roleplaying centric rules, skills, and game mechanics go?"

They weren't there to begin with. Why would they be there now?
For me, its the:

-At will/per encounter/per day
-damage centric system
-skill system
-interesting abilities being relegated to rituals

Though /signed on the OP

I just hate some parts more than others is all.
The only thing I don't like about 4E is that all the same old arguments that popped up when 3rd Ed was coming out are popping up again and being applied to 4E. If we had the internet back when 2nd Edition came out, I wouldn't be surprised if there would have been arguments that 2nd Edition was turning D&D into Legend of Zelda, the lack of assassins and monks made the game a failure, the NWP system killed roleplay because 'my character can no longer have the skills in his background', and how come psionics aren't in the core rules?!
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
one thing i notice, but havnt had time to test is that pcs seem to grow in power expontentially. LIke in 3rd edition 4 pcs of 10th could fight a 20th level guy, that doesnt seem as feasible in 4th. i could be wrong this is just from glancing so far i havnt tried levels that high yet.
one thing i notice, but havnt had time to test is that pcs seem to grow in power expontentially. LIke in 3rd edition 4 pcs of 10th could fight a 20th level guy, that doesnt seem as feasible in 4th. i could be wrong this is just from glancing so far i havnt tried levels that high yet.

You serious?!? Maybe with a lot of cheese... maybe. I'd say you're talking about some wizards with cheese, otherwise I doubt it. You mean the telekinesis+shrink item+rocks thing?
Since when did we need rules for roleplaying? Remember, its "role"playing, not "roll"playing. Roleplaying is imagination-based. I never needed a table, chart, or splatbook to have my PC be good at fishing. Or have an inquisitive nature. Or be bad at socializing with the girls. Or good at painting. If it's a skill that might have a game-altering consequence if you fail at it, then by all means, have a table or die roll that covers it. If it's fluff in the game, it really doesn't need rules to cover it. Does it?

If you call it "fluff," you're probably not that much into roleplaying.

A better word is this: "flavor." We need lists of musical instruments (and not inane ones like the musical dragon hookah from Song & Silence). Price lists for inns and the sorts of things they serve there. And yes, rules for how well one paints, how nimbly one sews and all the rest, so that when the Wizard gets Fabricate or the rogue finds a pot of Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments, what springs into reality isn't automatically the finest thing ever made because someone decided to play Archmage Mary Sue.

You want to be Mary Sue, either pay for it with disads or else let everyone see you roll her up on a random table: "Well, it turns out your lady in waiting sucks at court dancing and is only passable at embroidery, but on the plus side, she can drink an ogre under the table...."
So, maybe what we need (some 3rd party developer to make) is a non-combat proficiency system, the way that 1st edition splatbooks introduced the non-weapon proficiency systems that were made core in 2nd edition and morphed into skills in 3rd edition.

Ah, circles.

Anyway, is that what you guys want? Would it satisfy that part of your need for rules for roleplaying?
I'm literally can't believe that people are looking for painting rules in a game about dungeon delving adventurers in the vein of Lord of the Rings.
I keep hearing people say that roleplaying can't have supportive rules. This is complete bollocks. Although, unlike some other posters, I don't claim that D&D has ever done this well.

If you want an example of systems that have mechanical rules that enforce certain roleplaying principles I recommend checking out some of the excellent free systems. Try looking at FUDGE, GURPS lite, or to a lesser extent Fuzion. all of those are free online and will give you an idea of what people are talking about.
I keep hearing people say that roleplaying can't have supportive rules. This is complete bollocks. Although, unlike some other posters, I don't claim that D&D has ever done this well.

If you want an example of systems that have mechanical rules that enforce certain roleplaying principles I recommend checking out some of the excellent free systems. Try looking at FUDGE, GURPS lite, or to a lesser extent Fuzion. all of those are free online and will give you an idea of what people are talking about.

I hear people saying that roleplaying doesn't NEED rules.

Btw, as far as non-combat information, I personally would like a bit more than we have been given so far in this edition. It's possible that the Tome of Treasure will have some of what I want, but I suspect I'll have to wing most of it.
I hear people saying that roleplaying doesn't NEED rules.

Btw, as far as non-combat information, I personally would like a bit more than we have been given so far in this edition. It's possible that the Tome of Treasure will have some of what I want, but I suspect I'll have to wing most of it.

I believe the largest problem with that is that the core of a roleplaying game should have all of the non-combat support you need out of the box. I won't be buying a patch to fix it, sorry.
In 3.5 I've had a party of 4 unoptimized PCs at lv 15 take down a CR 30 BBEG. Its certainly possible...then again, the entire CR thin in 3.X was broken, esp. once you get into splatbooks.

Haven't played 4e myself lately, but from the looks of it encounter level is formulated much better.

Wizards has confirmed that all the missing "core" classes in 4e will be released in future books. Given that each 4e class takes roughly 15 pages, it makes sense that they wouldn't be able to fit everything. We might even see some of those missing classes in Dragon before it switches over to pay. Who knows?
I believe the largest problem with that is that the core of a roleplaying game should have all of the non-combat support you need out of the box. I won't be buying a patch to fix it, sorry.

It does already, I cannot find a circumstance that the current rules cannot handle.
I believe the largest problem with that is that the core of a roleplaying game should have all of the non-combat support you need out of the box. I won't be buying a patch to fix it, sorry.

Fair enough. I expect you won't be posting on these boards again, yes?

Since you don't, you know, play the game.

Have fun!
Fair enough. I expect you won't be posting on these boards again, yes?

Since you don't, you know, play the game.

Have fun!

That is actually a fair point. The reason I have been posting lately is because RPG's were a large part of my childhood and second edition D&D was a game I played for years with many fond memories. When a new edition comes out, you had better believe that I will check it out and post my opinion on it.

If I believe it to have flaws or it to be a poor product you can expect that I will voice my opinion on it. Would you rather people like be post their personal opinions of the product or should we all disappear and leave you alone? If you don't like my opinion you can simply disregard it or skip my posts.

Regardless, my interest in posting here will probably wane quickly since I won't be playing 4e. I honestly had hopes that 4e would be an excellent roleplaying game. I simply do not believe that it is what was promised.
People are all the Time complaining about the lack of rules for Roleplaying.

I might be an odd one, but the day i need to roll a Dice to Roleplay, im not roleplaying any more, im Rollplaying.
When i Roleplay my character i usually use my Voice, and my Imagination. No dice involved. In the circumstances where i got to interact with other NPC and the GM deem that Roleplaying is not enough, but he also wants a roll (Bluff, Diplomacy) i roll one D20 and add the bonus from the skill.

Checklist 4ed
My imagination- Check, still intact
My voice - *sing some* Yup, i can Check that as well
Skills to Socially interact - Lets see, Bluff for lying, Diplomacy for the more honest and sincere approach. Check that as well.

And to add to it to those of you who do need Rules to Roleplay. There is something called a Skill Challenge that not only uses you Ability to Lie or Present your cause adequately. But also uses other skills that is important in the setting (such as History, arcane etc).

I'm probably not going to use that though, to much dice rolling where there should be roleplaying (since im going to GM 4ed). I preffer my character to Roleplay the encounter and in the instance where the role playing is not sufficient, that there should be some risk to the players, i will still have them roleplay, decide how well they represented themself, how convincing they are, and add a + / - 2 to theire Bluff / Diplomacy roll based on if it was Well put or not.
Have to add though, that i really miss some powers that was usuable outside of Combat. Such as perhaps a Daily Power that lets you reroll and keep highest roll when making a Skill check
People are all the Time complaining about the lack of rules for Roleplaying.

I might be an odd one, but the day i need to roll a Dice to Roleplay, im not roleplaying any more, im Rollplaying.
When i Roleplay my character i usually use my Voice, and my Imagination. No dice involved. In the circumstances where i got to interact with other NPC and the GM deem that Roleplaying is not enough, but he also wants a roll (Bluff, Diplomacy) i roll one D20 and add the bonus from the skill.

Checklist 4ed
My imagination- Check, still intact
My voice - *sing some* Yup, i can Check that as well
Skills to Socially interact - Lets see, Bluff for lying, Diplomacy for the more honest and sincere approach. Check that as well.

And to add to it to those of you who do need Rules to Roleplay. There is something called a Skill Challenge that not only uses you Ability to Lie or Present your cause adequately. But also uses other skills that is important in the setting (such as History, arcane etc).

I'm probably not going to use that though, to much dice rolling where there should be roleplaying (since im going to GM 4ed). I preffer my character to Roleplay the encounter and in the instance where the role playing is not sufficient, that there should be some risk to the players, i will still have them roleplay, decide how well they represented themself, how convincing they are, and add a + / - 2 to theire Bluff / Diplomacy roll based on if it was Well put or not.

Ok, let me clarify, roleplaying *used* to mean exactly the kind of thing you're describing, basically acting like your character. Lately though IMO roleplaying has basically begun to mean anything you do during the course of the game that doesn't involve rolling the dice to determine whether or not you successfully brain something with a sword.

I'm sure you personally have the skills to socially interact or do whatever with your character, hell i'm sure that when you're playing a bard you even come equipped with the talent to compete in American Idol. but not everyone does.
Hence the rules for certain social and other non-combat interactions. After all, if i'm playing a bard (seeing as how i can't sing worth a damn) and I want to sing how am I going to judge how successful or how well recieved my character's performance is without rules?

Bottom line? Skills are an important little piece of roleplaying, they force you to choose at some point to be good at something to the cost of being bad at something else.
For instance the bard, and perform skills, well maybe my bard is a great orator, but he sucks at singing, choosing oration over sing or dance as a perform skill forces you to think about why.
Skills also put into place a set value in regards to the success or failure of your character, they determine how well he does things, after all my character can pick a lock, but does that make him neccessarily good at picking pockets? or he can find traps, but can he disarm them well? lets say he does disarm a trap, how successful is he? or say he tries to bluff a guard, how successful is he? is the guard accepting but still skeptical? does he fall for it hook line and sinker? because without the rolls and rules it's arbitrary, your dm just says oh, you convinced him, how do I know, or if you fail without the rules how are you sure?
For that matter lets say you have a character who wants to make a check to find out information on a certain monster, well you probably read about it in an MM but your character doesn't have access to that, so without the skill check how do you determine how much he knows and why or how. After all, your fighter doesn't spend his time studying dusty tomes on the local fauna, so why is he so well versed in the properties of the naga? has he encountered them before?
These little things are the type of thing you don't miss until it's gone, but skills and feats forced you to make important decisions about the flavor history and personality of your character. The new system marginalizes them under the auspices of "streamlining" and it pisses me off.

Thankfully the core mechanics for skills are still there, so I will simply be carrying the 3E skill system over to 4E if and when I decide to even play it.
I just hope that when FRCS 4E comes out they don't **** it up as badly as they have 4E in general.
You missed Clerics.
My only complaint playing yesterday was what they did to Clerics.
boggler65:

Technically, the streamlined skillset frees you to put as many nonusable skills in your background as you want. As long as it never matters, the ruleset doesn't really care.

Why should a roleplaying player give up an entire Trained skill that could have been useful in a skill challenge to flesh out his character in a manner that's never really going to come up in a timely or critical challenge? What that is is a mechanical penalty for roleplaying.

Well, what if the roleplayer wants his character to suck? Don't worry about that. I'm sure a lot of DMs are quite willing to rule in voluntary sucktitude. You might even get some kind of compensation for it.

There's a part in the 3e PHB that deals with this kind of ad-hoc class modification. Is this somehow not applicable in 4e?
The only things I am not liking about 4e are the fluff changes from 3e and epic destinies.

And gnomes being kicked to the MM. I swear to kill every dragonborn I ever come across...
Try looking at FUDGE

Done. Also they lost the acronym ages ago, its just Fudge now. Its an amazing system, assuming that you have an experienced GM. So for some of us, playing isn't an option. GMing it is, so thats what I do, but playing isn't. Although the free system isn't as good as some of the stuff in the Fudge 10th anniversary edition. The Fudge dog fighting chapter is by far the best space combat I have ever seen without miniatures involved. I know I couldn't have written rules that elegant.
There will be no 4.5 because a new edition will be released yearly ,in the form of new core books with new classes/errata for the original stuff. Clever. Or it's the new business model of "release core rules in mini-series form". Whichever it's the way things are.
Overall Layout: I have to admit, the artwork is great. Easy to read.


Chapter 1: How to Play

Do we really need 8 pages of this? But whatever.


Chapter 2: Making Characters


Pros: You now choose whether or not to have an alignment, which I really like. Unfortunately the only alignments available are Good, Evil, Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil. Good is what chaotic good was in earlier editions, and evil is basically lawful evil. I'm OK with there being only 4 alignments, but why not just keep chaotic good and lawful evil for ascetic reasons? It creates an ugly imbalance in my mind. Still a positive change. They've eliminated racial deities but some gods are patrons of certain races, which I like. Moradin is the patron of dwarves, but he is also the smith god for all races. Added rules for retraining. This allows bad choices to be fixed, and can be explained that if you don't use a skill you eventually lose it.


Cons: Every character class is broken down into how they fit into combat, and how you're supposed to play them. I guess it's not really that big a deal, but I really don't like being told how I'm supposed to play my character. For some reason they've omitted descriptions of evil gods, and put them in the DMG. I really don't understand the point of separating good and evil gods. This brings me to the tiers. I really don't like these. I prefer gradual growth, not two quick jumps. And I hate the Epic tier. Hey, I'm twentieth level. I think I'll become a god. Bah. Faster advancement. Third edition already advanced too quickly. Bad change.


Chapter 3: Character Races


Pros: Elven accuracy. Elves can re-roll an attack roll once per encounter. That's kind of nice. Sadly, that is all the pros.


Cons: Ability Modifiers. All races receive +2 to two abilities and no penalties, except humans who receive a single +2. So now all races are as good at everything humans are good at. Even halflings are as strong as humans. Yeah, I know humans can put their +2 in strength but that's hardly the point. Your average halfling is every bit as physically powerful as your average human. Bad, bad change. Dragonborn. Yeah they'd be ok for some campaigns, but they don't belong in the core rules. The core rules should be your classic fantasy races only. Now it's impossible to find a campaign that doesn't have kewl dragon people that breathe fire! I'll pass, thank you very much. Eladrin. Eladrin can teleport 25 feet every few minutes. Way to destroy dozens of possible scenarios, thanks guys! Trapped on the wrong side of a chasm? No problem. Jail? No problem. I'm curious how the first player of an Eladrin would react when his character is executed for a moderate crime. News flash guy, they can't throw you in jail. They have to kill you. Tough *******. Then there's the fact that there are 3 elves (counting half elves) while they simultaneously dropped gnomes and half-orcs. Playing to the elf fan-boy crowd much? Half-elf diplomats. Why do they insist on continuing this train of thought? Half-elf diplomats are lame. They work much better as outcasts. Cajun halflings. No, that's not an orcish dish. Halflings now inhabit marshlands and waterways, Louisiana born and bred. No Bilbo Baggins here, only his cousin Bilbeau Baguette. Humans get the shaft. They only get one +2 bonus when every other race gets two. Gaining an extra at-will power does not balance this out. Nice at first level, but becomes less and less useful as you gain levels. It's like giving a wizard an extra magic missile a day. Tieflings. I hate tieflings. Bunch of horned half-demons running around the countryside like it's no big deal. Lets see, a half-demon walks into a bar for a drink and isn't lynched for what reason? Sorry dude, your character should die here.


Chapter 4: Character Classes


Pros: Clerics are freed up more now that they don't have to be walking, talking med kits. They can fill this role, but they don't have to. Channeling their gods power allows for more options than turning undead. That's good. Fighters have an ability that causes an opponent struck by them during an attack of opportunity must stop moving. That makes it harder to slip by them, which I like. The fighter powers add some level of depth to combat, so I guess that's good. The rogue's sneak attack has been nerfed, and it's about time. It was way too powerful in 3e. You now get a flat +2d6 at 1st level, +3d6 at 11th level, and +5d6 at 21st level. Wizardly implements. Rods, staffs, and wands are now an integral part of the character, but they are weakened by too much if they lose their implement. They can also cast ghost light, mage hand, light, and prestidigitation at will. This is good.


Cons: The big one here is that all character classes use the same attack progression. No class is weak in melee combat anymore. Ok, there goes every possible combat-weak character concept anyone wants to play. Once again, thanks guys. Paragon paths seem interesting until you get to the mechanics of them. They really are kind of pointless, adding nothing to the game. All the clerics powers seem to revolve around light. You could make a good cleric of Ra, Frey, or Helios but not a good priest of Zeus. Cleric powers need to be more generic, use the term energy instead of light. Easily tweaked, but it shouldn't have to be house ruled. Fighters. The difference in a fighter attacking and every other class attacking is a grand total of +1 to attack rolls with either one handed or two-handed weapons. One or the other. A 10th level wizard has a +5 to attack with a melee weapon, a 10th level fighter has a +6 with some weapons. Big difference. And if you were hoping to make a good ranged fighter, you can stop now. Only rangers can be good with bows. If you're a good archer, you have to be a good woodsman. Much like life, those two skills are mutually inclusive. I mean it's not like you can be good with a bow simply by training with it, you have to run around hugging trees too. Duh. Paladins no longer have a reason to exist. Clerics and paladins are now both described as warriors dedicated to a god. Just drop them. They have a power called Divine Challenge. Basically the paladin can mark any creature, and if it doesn't attack him it suffers damage from divine beams of light. This is an at will power, so every fight a paladin is involved in becomes a Pink Floyd concert. If you're a paladin with a low strength, don't worry. You can use charisma instead for your attacks. Rangers have an ability called hunter's quarry. Once per turn you can designate any opponent as the target of this ability, and you get 1d6 bonus damage at first level (increasing at 11th and 21st level). Basically you get a bonus d6 on every attack you make. This makes them better fighters than fighters are. If you're a rogue you don't need strength. Go ahead and make it your dump stat. It can be a 3 and it doesn't matter. Your dexterity score is used for both attack and damage rolls. Then comes the two new classes. The warlock. This is an video game class if I ever saw one. All you do is shoot beams of energy that damage opponents and cause additional effects like weakness. They do have an ability called Eldritch Pact though. Each warlock has to decide if his powers come from fey, infernal, or star. I like this for a sorcerer type, but it doesn't fit the warlock very well. I just don't see fey based powers acting as the warlock's powers do. The warlock also gets the warlock's curse ability, which operates exactly as the ranger's Hunter's Quarry. One thing I was looking forward to was the Warlord. I like the concept, and it's been missing for way too long. I was hoping it would be a cross between a fighter and a bard, but alas. They're more like a bard without any abilities outside of inspiring allies. Alone, actually fairly weak warriors. Wizard spells are now just like any other class's ability. Nothing special about them anymore.


Chapter 5: Skills


Pros: None. Absolutely none.


Cons: Of all the chapters, this may be the one I dislike the most. There are far fewer choices, even fewer than before. You either have a skill, or you do not. And as an example, the fighter can be trained in 4 skills with only 6 to choose from. So skill wise almost all characters of each class will be identical Your character also improves in all skills simultaneously, with a +5 bonus to trained skills. So if you're a Bedouin tribesman who's never stepped more than a toe into water, you can still swim like a fish. Even worse than this is passive skills. Unless you actively use a skill you are assumed to be taking a 10 at all times. So unless actively searching, if you're perception score is a +5 you will never notice anything your buddy with a +6 doesn't, ever. Lame.


Chapter 6: Feats


Pros: Agile hunter, backstabber, powerful charge, armor specialization. Power attack is now a flat -2/+2.


Cons: Linguist feat gives you three languages. You can only learn languages in groups of three. The best feats are all racial feats unavailable to humans. An example of this is the removal of weapon specialization, but dwarves and eladrin can take feats that give a +2 to damage with their racial weapons. Yet another way humans fall behind the curve, and yet another way to force players to use stereotypical weapons. Multi-class feats. You now multi-class by taking a multi-class feat. They're all really weak and very few characters will multi-class.


Chapter 7: Equipment


Pros: Proficiency bonus. Some weapons are more accurate than others, and each weapon has a bonus to attack rolls when used by a proficient character.


Cons: Outlandish armor types. The continued insistence that a scythe is a viable weapon. You can't make attacks of opportunity against opponents 2 squares away, so reach weapons are useless. You can now simply walk through a pike formation. They list the rapier as a superior weapon, but it's statistically the same as a long sword, except it isn't versatile. It also requires an additional feat to learn to use a rapier. The non weapon/non armor equipment list is very short. WotC claimed they were doing away with mage-mart, but if my eyes don't deceive me the magic items (listed with appropriate purchase price) are listed right in the PHB now.


Chapter 8: Adventuring


Pros: Nothing special.


Cons: Resting overnight now heals all wounds. That's right, if you're wounded in combat it will either kill you or disappear the next time you take a nap.


Chapter 9: Combat


Pros: Fortitude, Reflex, and Will are now defenses just like armor class. Durations are simplified. I much prefer something lasting for one encounter to counting rounds. Grapple's simplified. Grab somebody and you have them until they break out, with maintaining the grab the equivalent of a move action. Second wind, I like second wind. This allows you to effectively go defensive and gain a few hit points back.


Cons: You get to choose one of two abilities for every defense. So for armor class, you can choose to use either dexterity or intelligence. This encourages min/maxing, as you can bump up 3 of your abilities and not worry about the other three. If you're a rogue you can use dexterity for ac, reflex, attack, and damage; you can use constitution for fortitude, and charisma for will. You can have a 3 in strength, intelligence, and wisdom with very little effect on your character. Critical hits now just do max damage. No more fun of the confirmation roll or landing one decisive blow. Diagonal movement takes the same amount of movement as vertical/horizontal movement, allowing characters to actually move faster if they move through squares diagonally. There are lots of ways to push opponents from one square to another, with no way to resist. I can already hear the cries of foul from players as the dm uses this to sweep a party into liquid hot magma. Coupe de Grace is now useless. It's only a critical hit (max damage) and doesn't kill a character unless the damage done is equal to his bloodied score (half max hit points. That's never going to happen. In order to die, you have to be reduced to half your hit points in the negative. If you have 100 hit points, you don't die until -50. Characters obviously aren't meant to die in 4E.


Chapter 10: Rituals


Pros: This is the best part of the game. These are spells that take an extended time to cast and are capable of doing more than turning one big thing into a bunch of little things. They're tied to skills, so most aren't automatic. Multiple characters can assist in the casting, allowing for dramatic scenes with evil wizards being interrupted attempting to cast dark spells with the aid of his cultish followers. Go-go Temple of Doom.


Cons: Anyone can learn rituals by spending a feat. If rituals were limited to wizards, I would have loved the wizard class.
Cons: Anyone can learn rituals by spending a feat. If rituals were limited to wizards, I would have loved the wizard class.

In many fantasy works, ANYONE with training or some talent could pull a ritual... and even CONAN did that, in Howard's books.



Also, the start on 8 pages on how to play... why we all forget about the new players? what is wrong to help them?


The rest of the points will be destr.... debated by others, more able than me at rethoric.
My biggest gripes about 4E:

Aggro. Fighter/Paladin marks making it nearly impossible for a melee person to get to the fragile people in the back.
Fighter powers. Fighters were the simple class that can power through encounters. They can be complicated, but don't have to be. This is the class you gave to the new guy in the group that didn't understand the rules too well so he could learn as he plays without slowing the group down every time his turn comes up because he wants to cast a spell but has no idea what spell or what his spells even do.

As for roleplaying... It's one thing to have mechanics for role playing, but it's another to set the atmosphere/flavor/ideas into people's heads. Compare an earlier WoD or other Whitewolf book with the 4th edition book and you'll notice a lot of flavor stuff that makes it easier to envision the game as a world rather than various ways of hitting stuff. Even 3.5 had some flavor in the early part about spellcasting and in the gods/description chapters. Sure, not a lot, but at least it was there.

4th edition feels almost like the whole spells chapter of 3.5 smeared over the entire book, only without even the colorful descriptions of the spells, just the mechanical effects.
Experienced gamer. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Dark Heresy, GURPS, various WW games, and more. Currently running Savage Worlds set in Eberron.
For God's sake people, stop making new threads for every comment. This post would have worked quite well in one of the 5,000 other threads on this topic.
In general response - Why do people dislike it when the books attempt to help new players by giving them suggestions? Play a character however you want; just because the book says fighters are defenders doesn't mean they have to be defenders if you, someone who is familiar with the game, sees a good use of them as pure damage dealer.

A new player gains from suggestions and an experienced player does not lose anything from them.
I was going to address all the inaccuracies, but I don't have time. So I'll just point out one thing for now.

Eladrin. Eladrin can teleport 25 feet every few minutes. Way to destroy dozens of possible scenarios, thanks guys! Trapped on the wrong side of a chasm? No problem. Jail? No problem. I'm curious how the first player of an Eladrin would react when his character is executed for a moderate crime. News flash guy, they can't throw you in jail. They have to kill you. Tough *******.

Their teleport can only be used once per encounter, and it requires a move action. If they can't move (chained to a wall, bound, etc.), they can't use the power.
Fighter powers. Fighters were the simple class that can power through encounters. They can be complicated, but don't have to be. This is the class you gave to the new guy in the group that didn't understand the rules too well so he could learn as he plays without slowing the group down every time his turn comes up because he wants to cast a spell but has no idea what spell or what his spells even do.

If a 7 year old can manage a party of 5, I really hope your newbie can manage to control one character...

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6630&page=1
I was going to address all the inaccuracies, but I don't have time. So I'll just point out one thing for now.



Their teleport can only be used once per encounter, and it requires a move action. If they can't move (chained to a wall, bound, etc.), they can't use the power.

What are you talking about? They don't have to actually move. If you chain them to a wall they are quite capable of teleporting 25 feet. And if you noticed, I said every few minutes. After teleporting they can simply rest a few minutes before doing it again.
In many fantasy works, ANYONE with training or some talent could pull a ritual... and even CONAN did that, in Howard's books.

True, it's not that big a con for me. It does create a serious change in flavor, which is the biggest deal. Outside of that, the ritual rules are great.

Also, the start on 8 pages on how to play... why we all forget about the new players? what is wrong to help them?

8 pages is just an awful lot of space. It seems to use 5 words when 1 would suffice. Again, not that big a deal. That's why I didn't even list it as a con.

The rest of the points will be destr.... debated by others, more able than me at rethoric.

That remains to be seen. The first attempt at this was a big fail.
Things I like:
* The new magic system with at will, per encounter and daily powers
* The freedom of ritual casting
* Better first level characters
* Minion rules
* Mechanically flavoured monsters that work
* Multiclassing seems interesting

Things I hate:
* how they gimped the intelligence stat. It is stictly worse than dex in all cases if you dont use it as a primary stat for your class (wich is the only the wizard now). It does nothing for your skills and even extra languages...
* Daily abilities for martial characters (no martial powers should be limited to once a day IMO)
* Gimping the Greatsword (its bigger than a bastard sword for a reason)
* Changing of the flavor of some staple D&D tropes like alignment, outsiders and the
* Ripping out full attack
* nerfing twoweaponfighting to rangers only