Still failed to love 4E after one year of gaming

797 posts / 0 new
Last post
I started playing D&D with 3.0 and soon switched to 3.5. Last year I jumped into 4E right after the books were published. It's been roughly a year now, so I feel it's a good point to sum up the good and bad of 4E (regardless of the title).

4E has made gaming simpler. This is basically the only thing I think 4E is good for. It greatly reduces the DM's burden. But I also noticed that with higher level characters, you still have to spend a lot of time choosing magic items. The time may be less than building characters in 3.5, but it's still a lot of time.

However, 4E is less fun (for me), partly because it is simpler. As a player, I spent weeks to build a 3R character, picking class features, spells, powers, maneuvers and variant classes which makes every character I made memorable. I had great fun in 3.5 gaming, yet I had equal fun in building my character. In 4E, the character spends me only an hour to build, and picking magic items may take a day or so. However, all that I remember are the magic items, not my character.

Also, 4E is too balanced. Balanced is not bad, but too balanced is. 4E tries to specify *everything* with rules so that the rules will not be broken. However, characters in 4E has lost diversity as a result. Say, what can the fighter do? Pull, push, slide. What can the wizard do? Pull, push, slide. And what can the rogue do? Pull, push, and slide. There're certainly a little more for each class to make them seem different, but to me, there isn't really much new in each new class.

Furthermore, 4E is less realistic. This is a fantacy game I know, but still, many things seem against logic in 4E. Why does an enemy get slid three squares when he gets stabbed by your dagger? Why can I use my items' daily powers an additional time after a milestone? Why do the NPC's use different mechanisms than the PC's which makes them so powerful even with no magic items? Speaking of this also think about the wishlist that most DM's have to do because many monsters don't use any magic items anymore. Compared to the keep or sell model in 3.5, which is more reasonable?

Finally I have to say, 4E has a flavor more of computer games than table games. Look at the names of the powers in 4E, and then look at the names of the spells in 3.5, you'll know what I mean. In my mind, these two kinds of games are different, because computer games are limited to computation power so they cannot be very realistic, but table games are different. A game run by a human can be realistic and dramatic at the same time. However, the framework provided by 4E is too restricted and too focused on getting things balanced. I'm not saying that no DM can explain 4E in a reasonable way, but why bother, when there's a more reasonable system around?

So I've given 4E a chance and spent a year on it. I got disappointed and now I'm going back to 3.5. Hope I will get things back in 4.5E
see you at pathfinder.
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
However, 4E is less fun (for me), partly because it is simpler. As a player, I spent weeks to build a 3R character, picking class features, spells, powers, maneuvers and variant classes which makes every character I made memorable. I had great fun in 3.5 gaming, yet I had equal fun in building my character. In 4E, the character spends me only an hour to build, and picking magic items may take a day or so. However, all that I remember are the magic items, not my character.

Weeks?!? I guess I can believe that with so many books out. If you're a spellcaster, there are just so many spells available to you across so many book. If you are planning your character even a few levels ahead, the number of combinations can be mind boggling.
<\ \>tuntman
Keep in mind, Thaliost, there's another advantage to 4e that you may not be considering: Other people aren't as good at this as you are.

By this I mean, they aren't good at sifting through options and builds, and intuiting what works and what doesn't. They're not good at seeing what items, feats, abilities, etc., compliment their character. They can't predict what will, and won't, end up having practical application in gameplay.

To a lot of people, 3.5 was just too hard. They didn't have the willingness, or the ability, perhaps, to commit to learning the system, or the art of character building.

4e, to some degree, negates this requirement. Just about anyone can pick it up and play it. For those who enjoyed that depth in character creation, I understand the reaction. But if you're playing with people who just never "got" 3.5, I can understand why they'd prefer 4e.

They're better at it than they were at 3.5. It's human nature to enjoy what you're good at.
Well, if taking weeks to make a character is your thing, be seein' ya.

How you can't see a difference in how the classes play absolutely boggles me, though ... as does the concept of 'too balanced'. I have bid a very happy farewell to Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards, Exponential Priests.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Well, if taking weeks to make a character is your thing, be seein' ya.

How you can't see a difference in how the classes play absolutely boggles me, though.

Yeah. The only way I can see this is if you tried to keep applying your 3e mindset and never really adapted to 4e, which from reading your post is what I'd say is exactly what happened.

For example, someone being slid after being stabbed by a dagger. No, he didn't get slid from being stabbed, that attack was simply part of a complex series of maneuvers the rogue used to move his opponent into an advantageous position.

As for the powers dealing damage and doing push pull slides, this is like saying that classes in 3e were the same. What does a crossbow do? Ranged damage. What does magic missile do? Ranged damage. What is disintegrate? SoD. What is the assassin's death blow? SoD. What is Fireball? Area effect with damage. What is whirlwind attack? Area effect with damage.

And yet we all know that the above isn't really true, because its such a gross oversimplification. Powers are the same way. To be honest, I have to wonder how much of a chance you really gave 4e to not see this (to clarify, that statement has nothing to do with you not liking 4e, its not for everyone, I just think that to break things down into such basic terms and not see any of the depth in it, that you likely went into the game biased against it and allowed that to color your vision, but I could be wrong).

As for some of the other things. I believe NPCs are assumed to have the appropriate magic items, which is accounted for in their stats. Its just a tool to make things easier so you can drop items in without having to account for all the stat variations this creates. If you don't like the NPC system, theres really nothing stopping you from using the PC creation rules, most people just see it as a complete waste of time.

The balance and simplification is really a matter of personal taste. You either like it or you don't. I disagree though that 4e tries to specify everything, that was 3e. 4e leaves much more up to the players and DM. I also spent enormous amounts of time on character creation, but I prefer being able to have a character with the same depth that I can whip up in 10 minutes so I'm not out an entire game session when my character kicks the bucket.

And of all the things to use to compare 4e to a video game--power names? That's got to be the most ridiculous argument I've heard so far. Was Cleave fine as a feat, but when it became a power the name was too video-gamey? Even with brand new powers that have no precedent in previous editions, I just don't see it. I might as well compare 3e to Diablo because the class names sound so Diablo-esque.

In the end, though, if you don't like 4e, go back to 3e. You won't see me there but I won't begrudge you your choice.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Salla, he's correct, in that they all play the same. They all share a unified mechanic, so there is, fundamentally, no difference.

As any class you:

1. Roll to hit.
2. Deal damage.
3. Add extra effects, per the power.

And repeat. Everything else is garnish. The fundamentals are the same for each and every class. Also, the system of

1. At will
2. Encounter
3. Daily
4. Utility

... is shared by every class. Yes, they're all the same. It's easier that way.
Well Thaliost, I may disagree with your conclusion, but I am at least very glad you're one of the people who actually gave it all a real, fair try before deciding it definitely wasn't for you instead of just looking it over once and then coming here to rant and complain and flame people who do like it, and so I don't think anybody has the right to tell you that you're wrong.

Happy gaming!

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
However, 4E is less fun (for me), partly because it is simpler. As a player, I spent weeks to build a 3R character, picking class features, spells, powers, maneuvers and variant classes which makes every character I made memorable. I had great fun in 3.5 gaming, yet I had equal fun in building my character. In 4E, the character spends me only an hour to build, and picking magic items may take a day or so. However, all that I remember are the magic items, not my character.

I also spent weeks making my 3.5 Character kick major ass. The question is, why would you want to dig through 50+ books looking for "That One Feat" when you could just use the Character Builder or Compendium and find it already?

Also, 4E is too balanced. Balanced is not bad, but too balanced is. 4E tries to specify *everything* with rules so that the rules will not be broken. However, characters in 4E has lost diversity as a result. Say, what can the fighter do? Pull, push, slide. What can the wizard do? Pull, push, slide. And what can the rogue do? Pull, push, and slide. There're certainly a little more for each class to make them seem different, but to me, there isn't really much new in each new class.

"Everything?" No, that was 3.5's shtick; tell the Player everything they could possibly do in and out of Combat, and nothing else is ever going to happen, period. 4E specifically has Rules that say, "Make **** up if it's Balanced!" (Page 42 DMG, Page 55 PHB)

You should also try to look at the Classes as simple Mechanical representations of a Character Concept, rather than trying to define your Character completely within the given Fluff and Mechanics. It's hard to explain this completely, but if you're interested at all, I could try to extrapolate on the subject a bit more.

Furthermore, 4E is less realistic. This is a fantacy game I know, but still, many things seem against logic in 4E. Why does an enemy get slid three squares when he gets stabbed by your dagger? Why can I use my items' daily powers an additional time after a milestone? Why do the NPC's use different mechanisms than the PC's which makes them so powerful even with no magic items? Speaking of this also think about the wishlist that most DM's have to do because many monsters don't use any magic items anymore. Compared to the keep or sell model in 3.5, which is more reasonable?

'Cause you slammed him in the chest and he stumbled back from the impact?

'Cause it's Magic? (Seriously, no one questions Wand Charges, but 4E's suddenly "unrealistic" for using the same Mechanic??)

Finally I have to say, 4E has a flavor more of computer games than table games. Look at the names of the powers in 4E, and then look at the names of the spells in 3.5, you'll know what I mean. In my mind, these two kinds of games are different, because computer games are limited to computation power so they cannot be very realistic, but table games are different. A game run by a human can be realistic and dramatic at the same time. However, the framework provided by 4E is too restricted and too focused on getting things balanced. I'm not saying that no DM can explain 4E in a reasonable way, but why bother, when there's a more reasonable system around?

I'm sorry, what?? Computer games with Physics Engines are less Realistic than 3.5?? That seems...preposterous, no offense. And how is 3.5 more reasonable??? There are exactly the same problems with it as there are 4E! Economy, Magic, Physics, etc, etc; they all make just as little sense in 3.5 as they do in 4E, with very few exceptions.

So I've given 4E a chance and spent a year on it. I got disappointed and now I'm going back to 3.5. Hope I will get things back in 4.5E

First off, only morons think there's going to be a 4.5; I wish they'd do that, as long as they sent everyone updated versions of their Books, but we all know that's not going to happen. With DDI making a decent profit, and the books making a decent profit, 4.5 won't happen.

Second, if you don't like 4E, "It doesn't feel like DnD should IMO," "I think 3.5 made more sense because of the way our group plays/DM runs it," etc, that's fine! But don't try to make bogus complaints with no basis in reality to excuse yourself; it's unnecessary, and it influences how some people with no opinion on the subject might see the game, driving away newer players.

Everyone's allowed to dislike things; you don't need an excuse.
Resident Logic Cannon
Salla, he's correct, in that they all play the same. They all share a unified mechanic, so there is, fundamentally, no difference.

As any class you:

1. Roll to hit.
2. Deal damage.
3. Add extra effects, per the power.

And repeat. Everything else is garnish. The fundamentals are the same for each and every class. Also, the system of

1. At will
2. Encounter
3. Daily
4. Utility

... is shared by every class. Yes, they're all the same. It's easier that way.

Unified Mechanics don't make every Class the same. Sneak Attack! Cantrips! Combat Superiority! Beast Mastery! Wild Magic! All of a sudden, every Class isn't simply a copy of the previous one, and can be played completely differently.

Your argument here, R_C, is like saying all 3.5 Classes are the same because they get a Feat every 3 Levels and a Stat increase every 4 Levels; Unified Mechanics are generally good for a System, and definitely for Balance, but Balance =/= Homogenization.
Resident Logic Cannon
all i can say is have fun taking a week to tweak the mechanics of your character. i'll spend that working on his backstory instead.

as for the differences in the classes; the difference is not in individual class mechanics, but in the way the mechanics are treated by each class. and while some of the mechanics might seem wonky, i have a 3rd ed butt-naked rogue in an empty 20x20 room who somehow managed to avoid being fireballed entirely who would like a word with you.

this is D&D, I left realism at the door when the unicorn-riding elf princess "starshimmer" started fighting the tentacle poop monster with rainbows. or when the ninja robot zombie pirate started faced off against the dinosaur-riding halfling barbarian on top of a magical lighning train while being shot at by a flying boat. realism in D&D is for chumps, IMO. give me my over-the-top action any day.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
Unified Mechanics don't make every Class the same. Sneak Attack! Cantrips! Combat Superiority! Beast Mastery! Wild Magic! All of a sudden, every Class isn't simply a copy of the previous one, and can be played completely differently.

Your argument here, R_C, is like saying all 3.5 Classes are the same because they get a Feat every 3 Levels and a Stat increase every 4 Levels; Unified Mechanics are generally good for a System, and definitely for Balance, but Balance =/= Homogenization.

Please CL, don't waste your time with him. It's like banging your head against a brick wall. (I edited this post after remembering that certain MM creatures are against the CoC).

EDIT AGAIN: Never mind since you already quoted me, lol. Oh well, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I guess there's no point in telling someone its a turtle.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Please CL, pay attention to the signs.

DON'T FEED THE TROLL

Sorry, Logic Cannon. :embarrass
Resident Logic Cannon
Unified Mechanics don't make every Class the same. Sneak Attack! Cantrips! Combat Superiority! Beast Mastery! Wild Magic! All of a sudden, every Class isn't simply a copy of the previous one, and can be played completely differently.

Your argument here, R_C, is like saying all 3.5 Classes are the same because they get a Feat every 3 Levels and a Stat increase every 4 Levels; Unified Mechanics are generally good for a System, and definitely for Balance, but Balance =/= Homogenization.

Thank you. RC's on my ignore list for his incessant trolling, so I didn't see the argument, but you answered it with perfect accuracy, grace and aplomb.

Have a cookie.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Thank you. RC's on my ignore list for his incessant trolling, so I didn't see the argument, but you answered it with perfect accuracy, grace and aplomb.

Have a cookie.

Awesome. Logic Cannon ammo, AWAY! :D
Resident Logic Cannon
Awesome. Logic Cannon ammo, AWAY! :D

READY! AIM! THINK!
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
READY! AIM! THINK!

Sigged. XD
Resident Logic Cannon
Keep in mind, Thaliost, there's another advantage to 4e that you may not be considering: Other people aren't as good at this as you are.

By this I mean, they aren't good at sifting through options and builds, and intuiting what works and what doesn't. They're not good at seeing what items, feats, abilities, etc., compliment their character. They can't predict what will, and won't, end up having practical application in gameplay.

To a lot of people, 3.5 was just too hard. They didn't have the willingness, or the ability, perhaps, to commit to learning the system, or the art of character building.

4e, to some degree, negates this requirement. Just about anyone can pick it up and play it. For those who enjoyed that depth in character creation, I understand the reaction. But if you're playing with people who just never "got" 3.5, I can understand why they'd prefer 4e.

They're better at it than they were at 3.5. It's human nature to enjoy what you're good at.

Or we just didn't have time to devote weeks to building the character. Besides, imo a characters deeds should be what's remembered, not the spells he knew. To me that's as bad as only remembering the magic items they carried.
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
OP: 4ed really can't give you the same satisfaction of character building as 3ed. However, I've found actual test play in a variety of settings and opponents to be as engaging. Take your party of Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, and Ranger to:

1) A giant ice bridge to fight Frost Giants and Ice Elementals.

2) the sewers of Greyhawk to slay Yuan-ti cultusts.

3) A Cloud City where Storm Giants and a Roc live

4) To the Underdark to slay Myconids and their Drow Masters in the phosperant-lit caverns

5) To the plane of Bytopia, where a Gnome Assassin battles you in a series of jumps between the plane's two parallel surfaces.

Each encounter will play differently, and let you explore different applications of your PC. That push power you mentioned? Way more useful in encounters 1 & 3, and has interesting applications in 5. As an artful Dodger, your bonus to AC vs. OA will be helpful in 2 & 4. And each encounter, using your powers at the right time will depend on the tactics of the monsters. Then play them through with a Swordmage, Warlock, Druid, Warlord, and Barbarian, and all the encounter will play out very differently.

The designers have been explicit that character buildings has been reduced so that play can happen more often. If you're into abstract play ("Once a day, I can cast a Heightened Disintegrate as a quick action!"), 4ed will disappoint. But if you actually want to do these things ("Last night, I cast Disintegrate on the Head Cultist and I critted!"), 4ed does it better.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I'm almost to the point of abandoning 4th Edition myself.

I was ever and always one of its supporters when it came to defending it against the 3rd Edition Diehards.

But I feel abandoned by 4th edition now. The designers seem hellbent on exalting lightly-armoured classes over heavily-armoured classes. If there aren't any new and awesome boosts/feats/alternate builds coming up for the fighter or Paladin soon, then I will jump ship.

I have rediscovered my old 1st Edition stuff. I suddenly find myself wondering why there was ever any need for a 2nd Edition, much less a 3rd or 4th. The Cavalier class absolutely rocks! And non-magical field/full plate armour had Damage Resistance back then, too! How refreshing!

Thus, 1st Edition is beginning to look pretty attractive right now. I'm sure I can gather a big enough group of grognards to run a nice campaign...

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

But don't try to make bogus complaints with no basis in reality to excuse yourself; it's unnecessary, and it influences how some people with no opinion on the subject might see the game, driving away newer players.

Everyone's allowed to dislike things; you don't need an excuse.

This is the main problem, right here. Like it, don't, whatever. But don't come and take a dump in our living room because we like it and you don't.
But I feel abandoned by 4th edition now. The designers seem hellbent on exalting lightly-armoured classes over heavily-armoured classes. If there aren't any new and awesome boosts/feats/alternate builds coming up for the fighter or Paladin soon, then I will jump ship.

Divine Power, silly!

Also, Scale Armor is almost infinitely better than any Light Armor, IMO, and Plate on the right Character is godly.
Resident Logic Cannon
Thanks for all the replies first.

I don't know what I said has invoked such a big anger in several replies. I apologize first if I hurt anybody. I'm just saying that I gave 4E a try, I spent a year on it which I believe is enough to understand the system, and I'm claiming that I dislike it and try to give reasons as objective as possible. As I saw the living room's name is "4E general discussion", I thought it means "like it or not, discuss it here", but I could be wrong.

Just to clarify a few points mentioned:

I'm not purely a power gamer. I spent two weeks to sketch up and refine the background of my second 4E character, and even spent time to learn some Draconic when I was working on it. As much time as I spent on many of my 3.5 characters. I enjoy storytelling but I also love making unique character builds. Notice that I say unique but not necessarily powerful. I love it when my character's build reflects his background. I didn't mean to discuss this because I still believe this is the same in both editions.

As for the question of why not to use the char gen and compendium, it's mainly a personal favor, plus I have to pay extra money for the online system.

Also, a lot of things I mentioned here were merely examples. As I mentioned the names of the powers, what came into mind was something like "come and get it". I admit there're some beautiful names like "rain of steel", but mingled with those names more like some simple brutal PC games, it doesn't feel right. So when you look at my examples, please don't take it as my only examples. I can't simply list all of them in a post.

I believe 4.5 is to come. With the speed of publications, 4E will run into 50+ books in 4 years. It's also questionable how long DDI will continue to make a profit. Merchants await, and that's simply the truth.

I haven't tried out Pathfinder yet, but that's on my list. Thanks for reminding me sfdragon.
I found character building in 3.5 a lot more interesting. But I find both DMing and playing in 4e far superior.
As a case in point I spent countless hours building Grendalyne, the Gnoll disciple of landshark for Blackwheel Company in Xen'drik Expeditions. She was a Totemist 4/Barbarian 1/Ranger 1/Scout 4/Umbral Disciple 3 by the end of the campaign.
From around level 3 on her typical round looked like this:
Move next to an opponent.
Attempt a 5' vertical jump.
Attack with 4 claw attacks.

By the end she was also hidinig in plain sight, tumbling as necessary, auto-succeeding on standing 5' jumps, and had 4d6 skirmish + 1d6 sneak attack on all those attacks, not to mention power attack, enhancement bonus, and other static bonus damage. At some point DMs stopped asking me to even roll damage. Her turns were basically: move 20'-60', remove an adjacent monster from the board.

Combats got very boring for me. (I still had fun roleplaying her, though mechanically she had limited out of combat usefulness as well.) But boy was it fun making the character.


In 4e I have Sin the Librarian. Sin spams AoEs all over the place, mostly at close range. He marks, sometimes 3 or more enemies simultaneously, making their attacks negligible unless they deal with him. And he's tough.. damn tough. He teleports occasionally, heals a bit here and there, but he's at his best when he's soaking everything an encounter can throw at him. I haven't put anywhere near the time building Sin that I did building Grendalyne, but what I've come up with is not only effective, but has a lot of options in combat and is damn fun to play.
I'm glad you have fun Istaran. I admit fighter classes in 3.5 may be boring to some people. That's different for me, however.
The fighter I'm playing right now is a Ranger 1 Barbarian 1 Psy Warrior 2 Crusader 1 War Mind 5 Deep Warden 2 Deepstone Sentinel 1. Hell damned complicated and I can't believe I built this character. A typical round for me is wait until enemies charge in (or I charge in if they don't), stance on and slash down. However, I use psionic powers to buff myself from time to time, and there are times that I have to use different maneuvers. Plus I have a cohort which provides me a lot more versatility. So if you look at that, fighter types are not that boring right?
I also think 4E is interesting and tons of fun at the table. My dragonborn fighter cannot do a whole lot of damage, but he is the hardest to kill, and reaps a wound here and there.
So like you, I have fun in both games at table, but I have more fun in building 3.5 characters than I do 4E.
4E has made gaming simpler. This is basically the only thing I think 4E is good for. It greatly reduces the DM's burden. But I also noticed that with higher level characters, you still have to spend a lot of time choosing magic items. The time may be less than building characters in 3.5, but it's still a lot of time.

One of the top complaints in the past is how people no longer have time to play D&D. Getting a game up and running as quickly as possible is a good thing. I was able to improv a session for my wife with no prep time at all, which is simply amazing to me.

However, 4E is less fun (for me), partly because it is simpler. As a player, I spent weeks to build a 3R character, picking class features, spells, powers, maneuvers and variant classes which makes every character I made memorable. I had great fun in 3.5 gaming, yet I had equal fun in building my character. In 4E, the character spends me only an hour to build, and picking magic items may take a day or so. However, all that I remember are the magic items, not my character.

Keep in mind, Thaliost, there's another advantage to 4e that you may not be considering: Other people aren't as good at this as you are.

By this I mean, they aren't good at sifting through options and builds, and intuiting what works and what doesn't. They're not good at seeing what items, feats, abilities, etc., compliment their character. They can't predict what will, and won't, end up having practical application in gameplay.

To a lot of people, 3.5 was just too hard. They didn't have the willingness, or the ability, perhaps, to commit to learning the system, or the art of character building.

That's a bit harsh, Rant. Some of the reason you cite might be true, but certainly not true for everyone. As I stated, people don't have the time they used to to build characters and dungeons that they once had when they were younger.

Perhaps they are good at building characters, sifting through options and builds. Perhaps they're better than even you at seeing what items, feats, abilities and so on compliment their characters.

Perhaps it's that they're more interested in playing D&D than play a character building game. Just because someone doesn't have the time or desire to spend weeks to build a character doesn't mean they're no good as players.
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.
I believe 4.5 is to come. With the speed of publications, 4E will run into 50+ books in 4 years. It's also questionable how long DDI will continue to make a profit. Merchants await, and that's simply the truth.

There will not be a 4.5. That's the truth.
Finally I have to say, 4E has a flavor more of computer games than table games. Look at the names of the powers in 4E, and then look at the names of the spells in 3.5, you'll know what I mean. In my mind, these two kinds of games are different, because computer games are limited to computation power so they cannot be very realistic, but table games are different.

YES. 4e is like an MMORPG. People are catching on.
YES. 4e is like an MMORPG. People are catching on.

You're...being satirical, right?

That was like, his worst point. It made no sense whatsoever. 3.5 had a fully-built Physics Engine, just like more than half the Computer Games released these days, with emphases on realistic movement, weight, and gravity effects. Of course, they still screwed it up, but whatever; pretty good job, overall. 4E was designed along the lines of, "Who actually ever cares that Mario jumps higher than is physically possible for a pudgy Italian plumber? Is the game fun? Well, okay then, screw Realism! It's fun and immersive, so it's good to go!" It may not work for everyone, but a whole lot of people still really love it.

@Thaliost: You're...not a Fighter. At all. You're a Caster with one level of Fighter who's ignoring the Multiclassing XP penalties.
Resident Logic Cannon
YES. 4e is like an MMORPG. People are catching on.

Even if that true...well lets just say MMORPG's are popular anyway.
As a player, I spent weeks to build a 3R character, picking class features, spells, powers, maneuvers and variant classes which makes every character I made memorable.

I made characters memorable by giving them interesting flavor and backstories and personalities instead.
Sig to be rebuilt soon The Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
@Thaliost: You're...not a Fighter. At all. You're a Caster with one level of Fighter who's ignoring the Multiclassing XP penalties.

Haha you can say that. But anyways this character is melee focused. I'm saying he's of the *fighter type*, not really a fighter ;)
There will not be a 4.5. That's the truth.

Let's remember that and see in a few years.
But maybe they will skip 4.5 and go up to 5.0 instead, or maybe D&D 3000. :D
Ahh, okay; that's quite true.
Resident Logic Cannon
I made characters memorable by giving them interesting flavor and backstories and personalities instead.

And a name that meant something, don't forget that! You can spend more time on that in this edition.
there is no such thing as 'too balanced'. 'Balance' is a on/off switch, not a dimmer!

4e's not for you I guess.

I played 2 different cleric, a bow ranger (one session), a warlord (first chara, only one session) and a bard so far. None of them had the same sort of feel in combat as the other.

Push 1 for one character doesn't mean the same thing tactically speaking than for another.
58292718 wrote:
I love Horseshoecrabfolk. What I love most about them is that they seem to be the one thing that we all can agree on.
See for yourself, click here!
YES. 4e is like an MMORPG. People are catching on.

Yeah! Whenever I play 4E, I'm interacting online with thousands of other players in real time over my computer!
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
I fail to understand why people feel obligated to post if they prefer 3.5 E or 4 E more. This preference is all somewhat subjective. I mean I don't see lot of soccer fan coming to a football forum and saying "I tried football for a year and I like soccer better" and than starting list varied real and imaginary deficiencies of football. I am very certain that you do prefer 3.5 E better and that is fine for you. There are still lots and lots of 3.5E material out there and you can enjoy them to your hearts content. However the need to state your preference as a fact seem a bit silly.

I personally feel that saying that all the 4E powers do is give slide, push, and shift is like saying that all 3 E powers is do damage and make you save or die. Both are gross oversimplification of the powers. However to each their own, your time might be better spent playing your 3E character or reading 3E post which WoC still support than annoying people in the 4 E board.
I fail to understand why people feel obligated to post if they prefer 3.5 E or 4 E more. This preference is all somewhat subjective. I mean I don't see lot of soccer fan coming to a football forum and saying "I tried football for a year and I like soccer better" and than starting list varied real and imaginary deficiencies of football. I am very certain that you do prefer 3.5 E better and that is fine for you. There are still lots and lots of 3.5E material out there and you can enjoy them to your hearts content. However the need to state your preference as a fact seem a bit silly.

I personally feel that saying that all the 4E powers do is give slide, push, and shift is like saying that all 3 E powers is do damage and make you save or die. Both are gross oversimplification of the powers. However to each their own, your time might be better spent playing your 3E character or reading 3E post which WoC still support than annoying people in the 4 E board.

Well I guess one of the reasons (not the biggest one) I'm saying this is because WoTC doesn't support 3.5 as much as before. No more books published and no more answers from the customer service. Nobody complains football and soccer because they can watch the games equally, which is not the case for different versions of D&D.

However, I'm not complaining about 4E at all. As I said I have fun with 4E, but I'm just saying I love 3.5 better and that's my personal opinion. I saw many people complaining 4E soon after it came out but I just waited until I understood the game better, and now I'm just offering critiques in the hope that a future version will be better. I'm just so surprised people can't stand any opinions that discuss the *potential* weaknesses of their favorite system.
I mostly agree with Solwen, I also do not understand the "purpose" of these kind of threads. It never ends well, there's simply too much fanboyism. But at least the OP was mature about the way he explained his problems with the system, so no big deal.
I fail to understand why people feel obligated to post if they prefer 3.5 E or 4 E more.

Because since last year's release, many of us have predicted an end to edition war threads on the forum in 3, 6, or 12 months and some have vocally declared their intent to make us eat our words.
Sig to be rebuilt soon The Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.