|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 3:16PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I get it.
No, you don't.
He wasn't saying that oldschool D&D differentiated mechanically between various classes attacks in vastly more detail than 4e, and that in 4e, any two powers that did damage and pushed were identical?
Because that's what it sounded like:
I think one of the problems is the spellcasting (or Powers) system. Using the powers for each class makes them seem the same. Older players liked that the magic system was different and that spellcasters could do some interesting things using spells in specific situations. In 4e, most of the powers for spell casters don't do much that is as interesting as older version spells. ... Hey...the Dwarven fighter can cut with an axe, do damage and push a foe back...guess what? A wizard can use a power to cause damage and push a foe back. Not much difference.
And, that's simply not true. Fighters and Wizards both have a damage+push power. One is an attack vs AC that uses the fighter's shield to muscle him back and occupy his former space, the other is a thunderous blast that attacks FORT and pushes foes in an area in front of the wizard back while doing sonic damage to them, and that doesn't move the wizard with them. One's a defender power that keeps an enemy away from your buddies and close to you, the other is a controller power that pushes enemies away from you.
They're very different powers, even though they both do damage + push.
Like most criticisms of 4e, Rhenny's falls apart upon closer examination.
Well, clearly some criticisms dont fall apart, seeing as the product is being updated and replaced by 5th edition. There are big problems and they are being fixed. Denying this doesnt help anyone get a better game, but acting on the issues does.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 4:21PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
They had that stuff in 3e as well? Yikes. Never actually played a wizard during 3e and none of those who did ever used such a mechanic, so it all went unnoticed. But yeah, I prefer my fireball effects be spherical and not square; if the effect is too close to old farmer Johnson's hay loft, I expect to be able to roast my marshmallows after the fight; and it should always do exactly what it says on the tin: deal fire damage. Violate the latter requirement and I'll be off into the cold winter night, muttering about how all the rest of the players can metamagic my rod if that's how they think it should be played.
So don't turn your Fireballs into Iceballs? I don't see why it should bother you if other people have the ability to do so. It's not like you'll ever be forced to cast a Fireball that doesn't deal fire damage.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 4:34PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2009
|
Well, clearly some criticisms dont fall apart, seeing as the product is being updated and replaced by 5th edition. There are big problems and they are being fixed. Denying this doesnt help anyone get a better game, but acting on the issues does.
Of course, but the problem is that most criticism of 4e it's just against superficial problem or semantics, not actual problems (that get discussed often by fans).
In any case, we know that every 5 years or so a new edition must be publicated, for monetary reasons (new core books are obviously the best sellers). So nobody expected 4e to remain supported for 10 years.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 4:49PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
I don't think these problems that people are discussing are a matter of semantics, and even if they were, if a lot of people perceive a rule or mechanic to work a certain way, or they "feel" that the game plays in a certain way, then it becomes an important issue to deal with. If it is a minor issue, fixing it will go a long way toward bringing everyone together. Without the fix, the "feelings" remain, and the rifts will remain.
I really like 4e, but I still can "feel" the validity of those who argue that class powers seem more similar than prior games, and spells don't seem so magical, and 4e focuses on tactical combat more than other editions.
I'm looking forward to seeing some of the modular proposals WotC has for D&DNext. That my help satisfy a number of splinter groups.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 4:51PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2009
|
So don't turn your Fireballs into Iceballs? I don't see why it should bother you if other people have the ability to do so. It's not like you'll ever be forced to cast a Fireball that doesn't deal fire damage.
Might as well ask why people complain about earlier editions favouring casters when all they had to do was make an agreement in their party that nobody played the offending classes. (Or a million other complaints about all sorts of topics that could all be resolved by simply not buying, watching, listening to or partaking in something...) The concept of the fireball should be kept sacred. Historically the material component for a fireball is a lump of bat guano, and we all know bat guano cannot be used to create any elemental effect other than fire. Or something like that. It's an opinion. People share opinions on forums.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 5:02PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2009
|
I don't think these problems that people are discussing are a matter of semantics, and even if they were, if a lot of people perceive a rule or mechanic to work a certain way, or they "feel" that the game plays in a certain way, then it becomes an important issue to deal with. If it is a minor issue, fixing it will go a long way toward bringing everyone together. Without the fix, the "feelings" remain, and the rifts will remain.
I really like 4e, but I still can "feel" the validity of those who argue that class powers seem more similar than prior games, and spells don't seem so magical, and 4e focuses on tactical combat more than other editions.
I'm looking forward to seeing some of the modular proposals WotC has for D&DNext. That my help satisfy a number of splinter groups.
"Feelings" do not make a good game. While you should always be sure that narration and mechanics go well together, that does not mean that you can (or you should) try to put in something only because someone wants it ot thinks that it "should" be like this.
There are people that "feel" that casters should be the most difficult class to play and at the same time be better than everyone at everything. But that does not do a good game, that only introduces steep requirements to play and too much system mastery.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 5:40PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
Leekanh, you are totally correct. I agree that one person's "feel," wish or desire will not make a game work better for everyone. But if many people have the same "feel", wish or desire, it is worth mentioning.
I'd be happy to play 4e for another 5 years. But I do acknowledge the criticisms..not in an edition war kind of way. Just in a pragmatic way. The original poster wanted to know the criticisms, so this thread covers them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 8:43AM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
Might as well ask why people complain about earlier editions favouring casters when all they had to do was make an agreement in their party that nobody played the offending classes.
"Not playing the offending classes" isn't an effective solution. In the Core Rule, all three of the offending classes are full casters (Cleric, Wizard, Druid), and thus, leaves only the slightly-less-broken Sorcerer as an "option."
Of those, the Cleric is the classical healer (and a classic archetype), and without one, the party has to spend gold on wands of Cure that (hopefully) the Rogue can trick into using. That's not an attractive option.
The simple fact is that when a game requires you to categorically ban more than a quarter of the base classes (3/11, or 27%) in order to have a hope of balance.....you know there's a problem.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 11:26AM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2008
|
Of those, the Cleric is the classical healer (and a classic archetype), and without one, the party has to spend gold on wands of Cure that (hopefully) the Rogue can trick into using. That's not an attractive option.
or someone runs a Bard as healer, I am curious how no CoDzilla would effect thei value as they were the third PHB class with healing magic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 11:40AM
#70
|
|
|
I actually love 4th Edition as opposed to 3rd. My favorite was and still is 2nd edition. I find most complaints about 4th edition seems to be about the level cap on the magic items. I have a issue about that as well. Although I understand why would a level one character have a vorpal sword +5 (yeah yeah I know), wouldnt be a good thing and consdiered OP. However it is up to the DM to give the game loot to the level of the character, for example I dont stock full a dungeon of powerful items for level 1's because to me that just doesnt make sense.
|
|
|
