4e First Impressions and Second Looks Megathread

971 posts / 0 new
Last post
For newcomers, what are your first impressions of 4e? For some of you who have been with us and took a second look at 4e, have your opinions changed?

Also, no edition wars here, please. Just your thoughts on 4e.
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
When I first heard about 4th edition coming (beginning of 2008), and saw what everyone had written about "mmo" "simplification" etc, I took these arguments in and just agreed to them, not having seen a single rule from 4e.

A few months later I got curious and looked up more on 4e. My mind simply blew, because it was just tailored of how I view a CINEMATIC and HEROIC fantasy RPG. And I liked it, oh yes I LOVED it.

Nothing changed throughout the course, I was gonna switch the day it arrived. And my players got equally stoked, especially one guy who loves dwarves and movies like Braveheart, Gladiator and 300, you can guess what he started out as

My opinion: 4e simply is superior if you want Heroic fantasy with Tolkien clichés. 3e is inferior in that part. 3e was good, I actually switched to that because I wanted more cinematic style RPGs, but now compared to 4e it's stuck in a limbo between simulationist and cinematic. The rules suggest it wanted to aim for the cinematic, but it slipped toward simulationist and still didn't get to that point enough.

Now I don't want to start an edition war, it is simply my opinion. If I want to play Heroic fantasy, I'm playing 4e. If I want to play a Realistic fantasy RPG, I'll go for a swedish RPG called Eon, 3.5 isn't worth the effort anymore.

Peace and prosper
EDIT: If you are asking why I hate it more-> 4e is stealing my fun from me.

Yeah, but HOW is it stealing fun? Let's get a good discussion going rather than throwing out hollow claims.

As for me, I've always liked D&D in all versions. There have always been things I liked, and things I didn't like. (I didn't like THAC0, but that doesn't erase all the great game sessions I had playing 2nd edition for random example.)

4e's simple explanations reminded me of the earlier red boxed days. I like the easier for the DM design of it. I like knowing exactly how many XP a monster is worth without having to cross reference any tables. I like the ease of building encounters. And keeping track of my character's abilities and powers without having a list of 40 choices per round. I like knowing my wizard is going to cast Magic Missile on his next round without having to go down a list of spells. (For that matter, I like not having to worry about picking the "wrong" spell for the day.)

I like the "heroic" action feel to it.

Action points, however... I think something closer to Eberron's action points should have been used.

I like how now the player characters work together as a team. Our abilities compliment rather than out-do each other. Party optimization takes place, where everyone has something to do, rather than have some sit in the corner, while other players shine.
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
Asking clinkz/psionix/juggyslash/axetank for an actual discussion is like asking the sun to not rise tommorrow. There's a slim chance that it might happen but in all honest probability, it isn't.

What do I like most about Fourth Edition?

Honestly, it's probably the whole cinematic Heroic Fantasy. The fact that you can easily play more than some disturbed bastard child of Simulator 101 and Sword and Sorcery helps too. I've not run into a single campaign style yet that I couldn't do in Fourth, and do better other than a Casters are the Stars everyone else is Mundane and not a Pc games.

Or the fact that everything that I could do in Third Edition, makes more sense variant wise in Fourth. (Such as Taint and Insanity)

Character customization has more of an impact now than it did before. Third Edition was about superficial choices. Fourth's about in depth choices.

The lack of eight years of splat. And the fact that we're promised more adventures less over all splat helps too. (So I don't have to even pretend to keep up with each book. Or rather pick a book during a given design philosophy shift to make sure I can stop powergaming in it's tracks)
http://guild.medialoungeca.com/index.php?action=forum The Guild I'm apart of. We're in WOW, STO, Rift and soon Star Wars feel free to register and hang out. http://sparkster11.deviantart.com/ my deviantart Wheelman of the House of Trolls, "I love it when you watch" Carrier of Section 2, 3 and 6 cargo. Resident Driver Stud God of Transportation and Lust.
After the original shock, with a second look, there are 2 major things I dislike in 4th ed.
1. The power card system. I like it with spellcasting. With the idea that you can zap less powerfull spells unlimitedly and that blasting your big nuke drains your power so that you can only do it again after a rest. But with sword swingers it's a bit of an immersion killer for me. 'I can only swing my sword this way once today. Or 'I can only do these acrobatic tumbling moves once in this battle'. And the whole most powers only doing one thing once thing, I feel reduces from strategy.

2. Way too many little things to track that change turn by turn. Every character dishes out little pluses and minuses and marks and curses and effects and statuses. It's just cumbersome. Ofcourse you can use a variety of pins and figures and tokens and bands and bookkeeping to keep a handle on it, but I think it's poor design.

But so what? It's far from the worst rpg system out there? The main gripe I have is that I feel cheated out of my money. If it would just have been 'Heroes & Monsters RPG' I'd never have given a second thought about it. If people insist it's D&D, because it says D&D on the cover, fine. But I would have wanted D&D evolved, not D&D reborn. Especially since the Feenix effectively burned it's parent to ashes (no more new material or versions). I'd rather they published D&D 3.75, that's why I feel betrayed.

(disclaimer: I've made no comparisons with 4th and 3rd so no edition war responses please)
Don't think of it so much as that, as it's narrative plot control. Rather than relying on the idea of having to get a 20 to actually hit hit someone, think of it as a truly decisive blow that is landed on a given foe. It's that moment where your evasiveness allows you to really get away, and it's that one weakness in your opponents' guard or situational awareness that lets you move hit them etc etc. It's not going to happen very often, and the limit is there for balance purposes.

Alot of a power's secondary effects, like let's say Lance of Faith for example, add to the strategy because you have to pick which benefit you're going to apply, who's going to get said benefit etc.

I could show you the definition of D&D and ask you how isn't 4th D&D (because by the definition's criteria 4th is D&D) but that's probably a waste of every one's time.
http://guild.medialoungeca.com/index.php?action=forum The Guild I'm apart of. We're in WOW, STO, Rift and soon Star Wars feel free to register and hang out. http://sparkster11.deviantart.com/ my deviantart Wheelman of the House of Trolls, "I love it when you watch" Carrier of Section 2, 3 and 6 cargo. Resident Driver Stud God of Transportation and Lust.
As someone new to D&D, 4e feels slow. I'm used to D&D in computer game format and I've also got experience playing Warhammer and other tabletop war games. And D&D in general seems slow. I've read a lot of forums since May and most people comment that 1 hour is typical for an encounter. But I'm used to being able to play an entire game of Warhammer in 2 hours. My party and I took about 6 hours the other day to just get through two combat encounters and some dialogue.

It doesn't help that all my players are from wargaming backgrounds so they treat all the minis on the table as if they are their own. Nor does it help that whenever I try and assert some DM authority they throw tantrums and say "fine I won't play then" or "fine, I'll just do whatever you tell me to/ play whatever you tell me to". It's hard for a new DM with no experience improvising this kind of stuff to have to deal with "creative" players.
My favorite aspect of 4ht ed is how DM friendly it is.

It struck me immediately that 4th ed is a DMs dream.. and i worship at my WOTC alter every morning to give thanks for such a wonderful creation.. i no longer have to spend my entire saturday preparing for a 4 hour session on sunday.
If you have any 4E conceptual issues or rules that you would like help with feel free to PM me. Roleplaying since 88! Guide To Dealing With Problematic Posters
Things I like about 4e

-MORE MONSTERS. Well, more monsters/encounter. As a DM I have a lot more fun playing 5 enemies in an encounter than playing 1 enemy that get's destroyed in 3 rounds.

-Skills: I love the new skill system. Mostly the condensed list of skills.

-No level adjustment for any races. I.E. The ability to play a interesting races without having to give up levels.


Things I dislike about 4e

-Multiclassing. Just looked at this again last night and I'm more disapointed with it now then I was the first time I looked through the books. However, I am planning on homebrewing a couple additional multiclassing feats (for example: a feat that increases the use of the base abilities for your second class. For the Cleric, the feat would allow you to use Healing Word as an Encounter Power instead of a Daily. etc)

-Magic Items: Aventurer's Vault has helped mitigate this gripe of mine, but I still find that many magic items are just kinda .... blah. Bland, unimaginative, unhelpful. Like boots of spider climb; should be called "boots of ok climbing".

-Lack of monster fluff. I used to enjoy reading the monster's manuals just to read about the different monsterous societies. The new monster's manuals need more fluff (so do most of the PC races, for that matter)


AxeTank, that link doesn't work, at least not for me.
Well 3rd edition stole my fun (all the games at conventions were 3.x) and Several of my friends converted. Never could stand that edition.

But 4th feels a lot more fun. It has a certain older edition feel to it, while maintaining its own uniqueness.

Got 7 sessions at Archon of Living Forgotten realms in, and had fun the entire time.
Having played some 4e now for a few months two of my three regular groups have decided to leave it alone for the time being. It does not feel like an evolution in game play to them. I think the quote one of them gave was something like this (not exact) "it feels like they took two steps forward towards balance, at the expense of taking five steps away from everything else".

I still have my board gaming group going solid through the KOTS module. We got side tracked in exploring some of the other cave systems around the one where we fought Irontooth (because the DM threw some more kobolds at us after that encounter on one of our trips to and fro from the keep, and the group just wanted to go back up in the hills and make sure that the kobold threat was truly over). They seem to enjoy it pretty much. I am not sure if we will go straight into the second module when we get there, or if they will take a break after KOTS.

I think 4e is just fine as a game system, it feels imcomplete to me at many points, but I imagine that as more releases hit the shelves this may open up. I think what I am most looking forward to is the possible release of older campaign worlds. I am certain I could get a group on board with a 4e Darksun or Ravenloft, or maybe even Birthright. But the new FR does not cut it for my group. We have a billion FR books already, and my players spent their time shaping that world for many years now in both 2e and 3e. They are happy with where they have taken the realms and aren't really sold on and major makeovers to the cannon that they themselves are not the root of. And I still have not gotten to put the majority of my Ebb books to use yet (but oh my how the WF, shifters, and trains, planes and automobiles have managed to make into other campaigns), so unless 4e Ebb has lots of NEW stuff (not new story) then it will be over looked as well.

I just have kind of developed a wait and see mentality with 4e. Its not a terrible system and its certainly balanced, but I cannot seem to get a group really excited about it. Well I guess my boardgames group is excited about it, but they have never been PnP gamers before, so 4e suits them just fine. My other two groups both long time PnPers/wargamers just will not rally behind the new shiny banner as of yet. Maybe as time passes and more stuff drops they will finally crack a book and say "wow I really want to be that or run that" and it will happen.

But for now 4e is off the radar. Blip. I keep looking at the new releases as they drop seeing if one has the material to relight the fire. But that book is not here yet. Maybe the book of fighters or PHB II will do it.

Sorry if my commentary seemed negative. I don't really have a bad opinion of 4e. I think it is a beautifully written and very balanced game. I am just a little bummed that I am the only one out of a pool of about 25 gamers that I know and love (have been gaming with for years and years) that seems to feel that way. Sure they have tried it for me, and I am sure they will again but they just do not have the interest in the system to really put forth effort into their toons.

love,

malkav
For me, 3.5E was dead when I started seeing in-depth previews of 4E. Those previews illuminated and magnified all of the problems I was having in my struggle with 3.5E, and it got to the point where I couldn't run it any more as the DM. I dropped a 3.5E campaign in mid-stride. Whatever 4E became, at that point I was finished with 3.5E.

We started playing Keep on the Shadowfell before its official release(thank you Waldenbooks), and haven't looked back. I'm actually playing in a 3.5E game right now, but its painful.
...whatever
I love 4th edition!!
It is easy to learn, easy to play, and most of all fun.
I am trying to get my 2nd Edition group to change.
Axetank...I am so sorry for you. And I'm being serious here. It's like (to use a totally random example) the Lord deigned to give you the perfect piece of Artwork to grace your wall, and when people visit your house, they gush all over it, but whenever you look at it, all you see is a framed pile of crap. I truly feel pity for you, that you cannot see what we see.


On Topic: About 90% of what everyone has said they dislike about 4E, I love. I agree with a few points here and there, but (as I've said before) I'm an Obsessive-Compulsive. You cannot even IMAGINE the absolute disgust I feel when I think of trying to create anything in 3.5 anymore. I literally feel sick. 4E is so much more manageable, and not just because there aren't as many splatbooks, but because the rules themselves are just so much more manageable. As a person with a mild case of OCD, I also can keep track of everything that's happening in a battle easily, just in my head. All the bonuses, penalties, marks, conditions - that's easy for me. However, I even play 4E on a VTT, which works even BETTER. It's astonishing how much fun 4E is online, and it also allows everyone else to keep track of all the complicated bits. So overall, 4E is absolutely the best edition of DnD I have ever played.
Resident Logic Cannon
I love 4e. I think its the best thing to happen to D&D since AD&D. I love the simple encounter design rules. I love how simple NPC stat blocks read, and how easy it makes it for me (as a GM) to run these NPCs. I love the non combat (skill) challenge system (even if it required a little bit of errata and fiddling after its initial release, its still better than anything from any previous incarnation of D&D. And, with the errata, it pretty much works perfectly). I love the unification of class mechanics, balancing of pretty much all aspects of the game (read: classes, weapons, feats, etc, etc). I love the removal of certain sacred scared cows of older versions of D&D (read: vancien spell casting, THACO-BAB, and martial classes who have nothing to do but swing basic attacks over and over again). I love the inclusion of tactical combat elements, which really revitalize combat encounters for me. I love the way the action point system works. I love the way they did racial powers and benefits, and the way all races are fairly well balanced against each other.

I am ambivalent about the fact that 4e puts "combat power" and "non combat power" into two separate pools, and forces all characters to gain equal power in both areas. Key word, ambivalent. Its not that I don't care... I'm not apathetic. I alternatively both love and hate the fact. I love that all classes have equal opportunities to be useful in combat and non combat capabilities. I have always liked the ability to choose to focus on one of these areas more, and slightly increase your capabilities in one area over another. However, in a heroic fantasy game like D&D, the two separate pools method really does work better mechanically during play. Its not what I would want for a game set in modern day times where non combat options become far more important (because you can affect the plot by hacking or using skills as much, or sometimes more, than through combat), but I think it was the right choice for a heroic fantasy (and often combat heavy) game.

There is nothing about 4e that I hate, except that since its release I have been forced to use my ignore button infinitely more times than I ever have in my past. (I never used it until 4e, and now I have 3 people on my ignore list.)
Love designing for 4E, hate actually playing it.

Making powers, feats, monsters and magic items is a lot of fun for me, I have a document I'm working on where I designing a load of stuff for 4E.

However, I greatly dislike actually playing the game. Too much like Descent or Advanced Heroquest and less like its previous incarnations, for my tastes.

Its kind of funny; there's not any one component that I dislike about 4E, its how the whole comes together. Sorta along the vein of liking chocolate, but being giving a triple-fudge brownie drizzled with chocolate sauce and topped with chocolate ice cream and chocolate sprinkles might be more than some folks can handle - or you can eat a little, but too much makes you sick.
Axetank...I am so sorry for you. And I'm being serious here. It's like (to use a totally random example) the Lord deigned to give you the perfect piece of Artwork to grace your wall, and when people visit your house, they gush all over it, but whenever you look at it, all you see is a framed pile of crap. I truly feel pity for you, that you cannot see what we see.

This is a very unsuitable metaphor. Art lies in the eyes of the beholder; it's entirely subjective. It could be that all these people "gushing" over the piece of art are following a hype (they even could be phonies who gave in to peer pressure) , and those who don't like it don't believe in the hype.


To me, 4e is too abstract in some places, and too little abstract in others. The hp/healing rules are unbelievable for me and would require an additional wound system. The power rules are non-sensical when it comes to non-magical powers. At the same time, they offer predescribed fluff that takes away imagination. There are some game features I like, mainly the skill system, but that's not enough for me to want to play the game.

Also, I at first reacted positivly on the changes to the Forgotten Realms, but when I saw the whole product, I was seriously underwhelmed. The Campaign Guide is a disgrace, and I hope that Eberron will not get the same treatment.

The DDI is another nail in the coffin.

I don't hate the system, but I also don't believe the hype (so to say). I can see that it could have been a good system, but out came a mediocre one.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
I was interested in 4e when it was first announced, although upset that my beloved Living Greyhawk characters were all going to suffer premature ends to their careers. As more information came out, it became clear that I just don't share most of the goals of the people who designed 4e, because I don't have the same problems with 3.5 that they did. (Among my group of friends, our L15ish combats in 3.5 tend to be fairly quick in real-time, highly tactical and teamwork-based, and I don't think the noncasters - who are doing most of the actual killing - feel sidelined. I certainly didn't, when playing my now-retired dervish.)

My friends who were enthusiastic about 4e suggested I wait for the actual release and see the whole ruleset rather than a subset, which I did. I picked up the three core books and read them, which confirmed my opinion of 4e based on pre-release data. I was then told that 4e "plays better than it reads", so I tried playing a few low-level sessions, and found that it played pretty much exactly as I'd expected from reading the rules.

So my opinion hasn't changed much over time. I think 4e is a fun game to play. As a replacement for 3.5, however, it falls far short for me. I've been very active in Living Greyhawk for the past four years, but I'm not planning any involvement in LFR, primarily because of the change of system (I would have played in a 3.5 Forgotten Realms campaign, I do like the Realms).
Overall, I'm even more impressed with the game now than I was at release. I liked the look of the game when it came out, but was concerned about certain elements (I tend to dislike limited use powers, I couldn't understand the value of action points). Most of my concerns have gone away in actual play - the system works very well. There are elements that could stand improvement (multiclassing, while the best implementation of any version to date, still needs some work to reach its full potential) but I don't have any real complaints. It's simply the best version of D&D out there for the type of game I like to play. As a plus, my wife can play and enjoy it too. She's not an avid gamer, and while she's tried other rpgs (including previous versions) this is the first one she's been able to get into - that's a huge plus in my book.
Best version of dnd yet, finally balance in a game. Towards the end of 3.5 I despised the game, and would have moved away from dnd entirley if not for 4e. The game runs smooth, allows characters to do more and is just a great game. Oh to the comments that it is too far from what came before, so friggin what? Legacy and tradition are idotic, a game must change if it is to survive.
A number of posts have been removed as baiting and harassment. Please, keep discussion on topic and refrain from making inflammatory statements in an effort to start an argument and monopolize the conversation.
This is a very unsuitable metaphor. Art lies in the eyes of the beholder; it's entirely subjective. It could be that all these people "gushing" over the piece of art are following a hype (they even could be phonies who gave in to peer pressure) , and those who don't like it don't believe in the hype.

All that stuff you said is exactly why it's a wonderfully apt metaphor. Fun is subjective. I don't know why so many haters (I don't necessarily mean you or anything) are being so stoic and adamant about not enjoying something. If you would rather be doing something else, then great. If you just can't have fun with it, I feel sorry for you. Not cause there is anything wrong with you, but because from where I'm sitting, you're missing out.
Since you've asked & this thread isn't 8k posts long yet.....

Well, I've been DMing 4e since late Aug. I don't hate it. But I also don't love it either. Overall I'd say I'm leaning slightly more in the negative direction on it.
Someone else mentioned that there was no ONE thing that they didn't like, but rather how they all combine. And that's pretty much how I feel. Any given piece of 4e? Most seem at least OK. But put them together & I'm not exactly liking them.....

Some things I do like:
.Monsters having a stadardized xp value.
I've always, since I opened by 1st box of Basic decades ago, liked this sytem though.
.I like the Eladrin & dragonborn PC races.
.I like the much of the art.
.I like the fact that 4e's drawn a good # of new people into the local shop.
.I like the skill system better than I did 3.x's
.I like the generic PoL setting. But this isn't actually new to the game, just something that's (IMO) being over-hyped.
.I like the IDEA of the AW/E/D & Utility powers. Not a fan of how they're implimented though.
.I like the initial character generation. So you're a {fighter}, here's what you start with....

Some things I don't like:
.The lack of randomness. Everybody starts with equel gold. Every {fighter} etc gains the same base amounts of HP per lv. Every monster has a set # of HP. Every monster/encounter yeilds a set amount of treasure.... Sometimes rolling those dice was fun.
.Minions. Alot of people love these things. I'm not one of them. I find 1hp minions (beyond rats & maybe kobolds, goblins, etc) just silly. Ogre minions. Bleh.
.The layout of the books, particularly the PHB. I just hate the format the powers are given in. Makes my eyes glaze over & saps will to care about what they do.
.I hate my MM. I consider it a waste of a tree. All I've found between it's glossy covers are random samples of creatures I could make via the DMG. And I feel this way because 1) there's no "base" version of any creature given, 2) theirs virtually no fluff/detail given. Even my ages old BASIC edition red book offerred more description....
.I'm really not liking how alot of the AW/E/Dailies work. Sometimes alot to track (not hard, just irritating), most require some kind of attack to trigger, and when used well magnify damages all out of porportion. If I'm not liking these effects at low levels (1-5), I doubt I'll like them more at higher levels.
.Not a fan of the healing surges, or the short/extended rests either.

My players;
All are having fun. Some like 4e better than others/better than previous editions. Several aren't impressed by how spells are handled in this edition. Wich, considering that they were never the spellcasters in previous editions, says something to me....

The DM (myself);
Overall I'm not having as much fun as my players. Nor am I having as much fun as I've had running other editions, or even other sytems.
It's not so bad as to make me quit & never DM 4e again, but it's definitly not entirely my preffered system.
And as a player? I could, most likely, have fun running a character. I'd have more fun were the Bard released....

So yes, my opinion on 4e has changed. I started out neutral. Now I'm slightly on the negative side.
I've been playing and DMing for a while now.

What do I like?

- It makes my life easier as a DM.
- The monsters feel mechanically different without a ton of customization from me (and I still do it if I feel like it)
- Better balance between classes (I can play a fighter again and not feel like I'm slowing the whole party down)
- More meaningful options when creating characters.
- More meaningful options when playing a non-caster (as compared to previous editions)
- Dwarf Mages.

What do I dislike?

- Some classes are tied to some skills. I feel this shouldn't be the case.
- Parangon Multiclassing. It just doesn't give enough Bang-for-Buck.
- Some classes are starved for class-related feats.
- Tiefling art.

What do I miss?

- I want another controller. Was it REALLY necesary to introduce the warlock in the first PHB?
"Magic is impressive, but now Minsc leads, swords for everyone" - Minsc, BG
- Tiefling art.

Seriously. Ew. This is the look I'm using for my Warlock/Wizard Tiefling.

- I want another controller. Was it REALLY necesary to introduce the warlock in the first PHB?

Yes.
Resident Logic Cannon
I could show you the definition of D&D and ask you how isn't 4th D&D (because by the definition's criteria 4th is D&D) but that's probably a waste of every one's time.

And I could show you another definition and ask how it is (because by that definition 4th isn't D&D), but yes that would be a waste also.

Wizards owns D&D. They could make a game of Hungry Hungry Hippoes and call it D&D and then 'officially' it would be D&D.

The point is that 4th is so different from previous editions that it's not a revamp but reinvention. The major thing is that the very core that 4th revolves around is the power card system. This is totally different to anything D&D has been before. Good, bad, better, worse; a matter of oppinion. Totally different; a fact.
And I could show you another definition and ask how it is (because by that definition 4th isn't D&D), but yes that would be a waste also.

Wizards owns D&D. They could make a game of Hungry Hungry Hippoes and call it D&D and then 'officially' it would be D&D.

The point is that 4th is so different from previous editions that it's not a revamp but reinvention. The major thing is that the very core that 4th revolves around is the power card system. This is totally different to anything D&D has been before. Good, bad, better, worse; a matter of oppinion. Totally different; a fact.

Just because you choose to use cards doesn't make cards an intergrated part of the system.
If anything I say is wrong, clueless or spelt incorrectly, it is because, I am, in general, wrong, clueless and... Well, I'm usually spelt correctly.
....Its kind of funny; there's not any one component that I dislike about 4E, its how the whole comes together. Sorta along the vein of liking chocolate, but being giving a triple-fudge brownie drizzled with chocolate sauce and topped with chocolate ice cream and chocolate sprinkles might be more than some folks can handle - or you can eat a little, but too much makes you sick.

Heh. That's an ironic metaphor, for me. I would love a dessert like that (unless everything was some super-rich dark chocolate or something; regular/milk chocolate, though...).
Which I think just goes to show this is all ultimately going to be a matter of taste. And apparently, there's a fair number of people out there with this exact taste.
Also, I now want chocolate. Lots of it.
Just because you choose to use cards doesn't make cards an intergrated part of the system.

Call it power box, power blox. Hardly the point.
The point is that 4th is so different from previous editions that it's not a revamp but reinvention. The major thing is that the very core that 4th revolves around is the power card system. This is totally different to anything D&D has been before. Good, bad, better, worse; a matter of oppinion. Totally different; a fact.

In my opinion.. the exact same thing could be said about 3rd ed coming from 2nd ed.. even AD&D coming from OD&D has a pretty decent learning curve..

As far as i am concerned they are all D&D. Period. Some editions are just much better than others...
If you have any 4E conceptual issues or rules that you would like help with feel free to PM me. Roleplaying since 88! Guide To Dealing With Problematic Posters
Heh. That's an ironic metaphor, for me. I would love a dessert like that (unless everything was some super-rich dark chocolate or something; regular/milk chocolate, though...).
Which I think just goes to show this is all ultimately going to be a matter of taste. And apparently, there's a fair number of people out there with this exact taste.
Also, I now want chocolate. Lots of it.

Basically it turns out that people have different opinions, and some people like some things while other people like other things.

What a revelation!


Seriously, what it goes to show is that there's no point in trying to make everyone like something. You do your best to dispel any myths or lies about a subject, but some people just aren't going to like it whatever you do, and with those people you either agree to disagree, or ignore them.
In my opinion.. the exact same thing could be said about 3rd ed coming from 2nd ed.. even AD&D coming from OD&D has a pretty decent learning curve..

Well maybe that's a matter of an opinion too then. I've played them all though and I just can't see it no matter how I try. The basic simple melee attacking, hit dice, hit point system, spell system, saving throws, variable BAB... have always been there. The evolution has mainly been with class balance and fiddling around with non-weapon proficiensies, feats, skill tricks and other secondary bolt ons.

*edit*
Besides, how many gazillion posts have there been people saying I love 4th and hate the old/I love the old and hate 4th? How can they be similar if so many like them so differently?
*edit*
Besides, how many gazillion posts have there been people saying I love 4th and hate the old/I love the old and hate 4th? How can they be similar if so many like them so differently?

If you know the answer to this question there are a number of top Psychologists who would love to give you large amounts of money to explain it to them.
If you know the answer to this question there are a number of top Psychologists who would love to give you large amounts of money to explain it to them.

Ya. Big. Green. Under bridges...
Well maybe that's a matter of an opinion too then. I've played them all though and I just can't see it no matter how I try. The basic simple melee attacking, hit dice, hit point system, spell system, saving throws, variable BAB... have always been there. The evolution has mainly been with class balance and fiddling around with non-weapon proficiensies, feats, skill tricks and other secondary bolt ons.

*edit*
Besides, how many gazillion posts have there been people saying I love 4th and hate the old/I love the old and hate 4th? How can they be similar if so many like them so differently?

There's a link in my Sig that disagrees with you. I've heard all the same things this time around that I heard from my local friends at the shop in 2000, and I've found a link that not only sounds just like them when they were arguing over AD&D 2nd Ed vs. 3E, it sounds just like most of the people arguing about 3.5 vs. 4E. So I fully expect all the BS and grandstanding to just disappear in about 6 months or so.
Resident Logic Cannon
Well maybe that's a matter of an opinion too then. I've played them all though and I just can't see it no matter how I try. The basic simple melee attacking, hit dice, hit point system, spell system, saving throws, variable BAB... have always been there. The evolution has mainly been with class balance and fiddling around with non-weapon proficiensies, feats, skill tricks and other secondary bolt ons.

*edit*
Besides, how many gazillion posts have there been people saying I love 4th and hate the old/I love the old and hate 4th? How can they be similar if so many like them so differently?

The game changed so what? Why is that a bad thing? Keeping unbalanced elements, ie vancian casting and variable bab simply for the sake of legacy is retarded when they came up with a system that works better. Have you ever heard the phrase that the only constant in the universe is change?
Change, change, change...
I am sooooo sick of hearing about change...

Change does not necessarily equate to "good"

And at the same time, change does not necessarily equal bad.

And to get this back on the topic of the thread...

Personally, the more I look at and play 4E, the more I like it. I am especially excited for the ease of life for the DM. NPCs being built not by the same rules as PCs, acknowledging that for (most) monsters, their lifespan is all of 30 seconds or so, and all of the other things in the DMG and PHB that make the DMs life easier.

I also really like the emphasis on a cinematic experience.
Mudbunny SVCL for DDI Before you post, think of the Monkeysphere
Well maybe that's a matter of an opinion too then. I've played them all though and I just can't see it no matter how I try. The basic simple melee attacking, hit dice, hit point system, spell system, saving throws, variable BAB... have always been there. The evolution has mainly been with class balance and fiddling around with non-weapon proficiensies, feats, skill tricks and other secondary bolt ons.

*edit*
Besides, how many gazillion posts have there been people saying I love 4th and hate the old/I love the old and hate 4th? How can they be similar if so many like them so differently?

I don't know. But if a gazillion posts and complaints over the internet suggest that there are no similarities between 3e and 4e, then there was also no similarities between AD&D and 3e. The exact same atmosphere of complaint was present when AD&D made the switch to 3e (and, I am told, when D&D upgraded to AD&D, though I did not witness that change first hand).

Me, personally, I see how 4e evolved out of 3e. I see the similarities, and the differences. Both exist. There are now powers, which is sort of new in its format. But, before, there were still class abilities... and feats, like powers in 4e, were brand new to 3e. The game still uses a d20 mechanic. THACO turned into BAB in 3e, which got replaced with a flat bonus to attack by level in 4e. AD&D players options added non combat skills, and skill points. They tried this method in 3e. It was a bit needlessly complex, and got replaced with a untrained/trained/focused mechanic for 4e. Is 4e different? Yes. Does it still come out of previous D&D products? As much so as 3e came out of previous D&D products. Is it a better system of mechanics? In my opinion yes.

HaoryHoe is dopplegangster, which is why I stuck him strait on my ignore list with the first post of his I read. To be honest, I don't know how he is not banned with a name like that. I am considering reporting him on the primes of his name alone.
There's a link in my Sig that disagrees with you. I've heard all the same things this time around that I heard from my local friends at the shop in 2000, and I've found a link that not only sounds just like them when they were arguing over AD&D 2nd Ed vs. 3E, it sounds just like most of the people arguing about 3.5 vs. 4E. So I fully expect all the BS and grandstanding to just disappear in about 6 months or so.

I checked your link. There was a post with a couple of minor grievances? And the writer didn't even know 3e rules. I don't remember seeing anything major grief about 3e back in the days except for people having a ton of obsolete books, which is only natural. And everyone realized very quick that attack bonus is exactly the same as thac0, but simpler notation.

So everyone who has critique is grandstanding and full of BS? Funny how it's the people of certain disposition that always result to insults. And I would be severely suprized if any topic would be still alive after 6 months in the internet.
I checked your link. There was a post with a couple of minor grievances? And the writer didn't even know 3e rules. I don't remember seeing anything major grief about 3e back in the days except for people having a ton of obsolete books, which is only natural. And everyone realized very quick that attack bonus is exactly the same as thac0, but simpler notation.

So everyone who has critique is grandstanding and full of BS? Funny how it's the people of certain disposition that always result to insults. And I would be severely suprized if any topic would be still alive after 6 months in the internet.

"Don't know the rules" oh the irony of that line. Apparently you didn't read the entire thread.

If you can't see Deja vu there -at all- there's something wrong with your head.

People that say "It isn't D&D, $e, D&D4e=Diablo!, D&D = Wow" those people are doing bs and grand standing. People that actually have something intelligent to say about something, on the other hand aren't.
http://guild.medialoungeca.com/index.php?action=forum The Guild I'm apart of. We're in WOW, STO, Rift and soon Star Wars feel free to register and hang out. http://sparkster11.deviantart.com/ my deviantart Wheelman of the House of Trolls, "I love it when you watch" Carrier of Section 2, 3 and 6 cargo. Resident Driver Stud God of Transportation and Lust.
The link in his sig is directly analogues to the type of arguments anti 4e posters make about 4e. And, minor grievances? Do you know how many people moaned about the loss of THAC0? About how 3e was nothing but D&D for the "diablo generation"? About how feats looked like something out of a video game? (Sound a little like the 4e, and its power system, is like WoW argument to you? Because, it does to me.) And no, not everyone "very quickly realized that "BAB was like THAC0 but with simpler notation. Many grognards "left D&D," by which I mean they never purchased 3e and kept playing AD&D. In other words, what he pointed out is that your comment about the "gazillion posts" proves nothing. When 3e was initially released, the same atmosphere of complaint was present. You say "the writer did not even know 3e rules," and most of us pro 4e readers feel the same way about the anti 4e posters when we read what they post. There is no difference between that post, or the anti 4e posts that are going up now, except that that post is about 3e.

As for what you remember, if you don't remember anti 3e dissent when it was released, either you were not actively participating in the online D&D community at the time, you were very lucky to only be participating in elements of the online D&D community that somehow escaped the edition war that was raging over most of the rest of the internet, or you have very selective memory.

People coming onto the 4e forums to post anti 4e comments and then claim that 3e is amazing are participating in BS. There is nothing wrong with preferring an older edition. There is nothing wrong with saying so in boards dedicated to that older edition. But coming onto the 4e forums, when you have no intent to ever take part in 4e, and you only want to spew anti 4e hate, is BS. That sort of BS happened when 3e was released, and then died. That sort of BS is happening now, has already started to die down, and will also eventually disappear. I'm not saying you participate in this sort of BS Lazzo (you are not on my ignore list, so I have not seen you do so yet)... but people like PsionX, Dopplegangster, ClinkZ, and On the wings of TPK all have. Most of us who have made the transition to 4e, and love the new edition, are a little sick of hearing BS from people who "don't know the 4e rules" any better than that poster in Cimson Lancers sig knew 3e rules.

P.S. I just want to point out, coming to learn that "BAB is just a simpler notation of THAC0" is as simple of an understanding as coming to understand that "powers" are just a simpler notation of class abilities, or that the unified class bonus to hit based on level is just a simpler notation of BAB. The difference is that you (the "proverbial" you, not you as in you specifically Lazzo) don't seem to be able to see that, while those of us who love 4e can. In other words, there is no difference in relation between those who like 4e and can notice how these elements of 4e are just simpler notation and those who can't seem to get a grasp on this, and the similar relation between posters in the thread Lancer linked.