Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nerjin]

I keep hearing people complain about 4e DnD around so I was kind of wondering: "What's so bad about fourth edition compared to 3.5?"

[Neonivek]

Objectively 4.0 isn't bad. Heck I think it has a lot of untapped potential.

Its major fault is that it isn't dungeons and dragons as it was until now and that the previous version was discontinued.

That is what makes it "so bad".

[Nerjin]

Its major fault is that it isn't dungeons and dragons as it was until now and that the previous version was discontinued.

Could you explain what you mean by that?

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Never played 4E.

I can say that the character sheet for a 4E character is ridiculously long, but includes all the information you'd need to refer to. If you rolled up a 1st level spellcaster in any edition of D&D and wrote down his spell information on the character sheet you'd probably bloat it quite a bit. A minimalist 4E character sheet is probably much more reasonable.

The monster stat blocks for 3E are ridiculously long. Then again, a minimalist stat block that forced you to look up and calculate things like grappling bonuses, where all your Armor Class is coming from, etc. would probably be much more reasonable.

The common refrain I hear is that 4E is (supposedly) well balanced but that all the characters work similarly (you don't have the "Fighter can fight all day equally well but M-U has a few powerful spells and after that is rather weak" split in play style).

Because of the daily etc. powers everyone has to do resource management. Previous editions allowed a player to ease into resource management by picking a "simple" class like Fighter who didn't have to keep track of so much stuff.

Personally I loathe the idea of "mook" enemy types that have only 1 Hit Point but look exactly like regular monsters. Like, wtf, is this a race of Pinata Orcs who faint at the sight of blood?

I also don't like some of the systemic assumptions. For example, if an orc archer has an arrow attack, you should be able to deprive him of that attack by depriving him of arrows. From what I've heard, that's not possible for game balance reasons (please correct me if I'm wrong!).

They went template-crazy, like the joke about the Frenzied Arcane Spectral Astral Phase Infernal Giant Half-Dragon Half-Spider. It's like, can't we just have an Orc? I think they did this to boost sales of miniatures and to create intellectual property (proof one way or the other would be lovely to see).

I think it's weird that a Bard can hurt someone by singing at them. Sure, in Final Fantasy you could spew musical notes out your lute and it's fine, but I didn't think D&D was supposed to be like that. Similarly, a leader can shout at someone and heal them? (And yeah, HP = wounds, because when you lose enough HP you become Bloodied). Kinda weird, ok. Just things that are a little off for me.

I like wonder and suspense and joy and heartbreak related to treasure and magic items. I don't like the idea of players handing over a list of magic items they want to find and the DM puts them in the dungeon. And that the game system requires PCs get magic items because otherwise they'll be underpowered and the rules break. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong about this).

Luckily, every single complaint here can be house ruled. So despite this sounding like a bunch of crappin' on 4E, it's just the things I would take out if I ran it.

[Neonivek]

Just some things I disagree with Leo about.

Personally I loathe the idea of "mook" enemy types that have only 1 Hit Point but look exactly like regular monsters. Like, wtf, is this a race of Pinata Orcs who faint at the sight of blood?

The minion system was created because lesser enemies in 4e and especially 3.5 are rather pathetic when against more powerful PCs. Whenever you need a bunch of fodder enemies to protect a boss there is basically nothing you can do because anything that are a threat to the PCs cannot be in sizable numbers.

Minions are a way to rectify that problem by allowing easily disposable enemies that have a good chance to hit you, resist effects, and deal existent damage.

In other words it is a well intentioned system but one that didn't quite work.

Though I'd take the Minion system over sending flocks of level 1 enemies.

I think it's weird that a Bard can hurt someone by singing at them. Sure, in Final Fantasy you could spew musical notes out your lute and it's fine, but I didn't think D&D was supposed to be like that

Dungeons and dragons had that for a while actually. Mind you they were essentially "song spells" (spells where the verbal component was singing or playing an instrument) but whatever.

Heck "Somatic Component" is left intentionally vague. There literally could be a wizard out there who casts fireball by dancing the flamenco while singing a passionate love song and it wouldn't even be stretching the rules.

Similarly, a leader can shout at someone and heal them?

HP, in 4e, represents the ability of someone to stay in the fight. Dungeons and dragons already keeps hp in a sort of nebulous zone of being both plot armor and being constitution.

The Leader's shout inspires the person to fight on. Thus their "healing" represents a sort of second wind.

that the game system requires PCs get magic items because otherwise they'll be underpowered and the rules break

That has always been in dungeons and dragons as well. Though it is the equivilant of a western setting and not having a gun. Dungeons and dragons is a world of monsters and magic and if you do not use the tools of the setting, then you forfeit the ability to survive in the setting.

They went template-crazy, like the joke about the Frenzied Arcane Spectral Astral Phase Infernal Giant Half-Dragon Half-Spider. It's like, can't we just have an Orc? I think they did this to boost sales of miniatures and to create intellectual property (proof one way or the other would be lovely to see).

First of all that is 3.5 as 4e almost never used templates. Second of all templates are simply alterations one can make to a monster, creature, or being.

No one went template crazy. It is up to the players and DM whether to use them and most campaigns and stories do not use templates extensively unless it is a gimmick dungeon (such as a clockwork mansion where all the monsters are mechanical mockeries of the real deal) or they are undead.

At its best the template either feels like a type of monster in it of itself (Like Zombies and Skeletons who are template creatures), give an interesting twist on an enemy of NPC, or they flesh out the current setting more. Having many templates to use is no more "overboard" then having a lot of monsters "Why use a Raksha? Can't we just have an Orc?".

[TheBronzePickle]

As someone who's played both, I would say that one of the issues is that 4d simplified D&D, maybe a little too much. There's really not nearly as much option for fine-tuning your character, you're generally limited to fairly specific roles and, as you progress, only a slightly more open selection of abilities. If you do want to get more customization options, you have to get more books, which isn't so bad since it's D&D and you're probably going to be investing in a lot of books anyway, but it can be a nuisance to a gamer on a budget, or who only has access to a limited supply of books.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, which is mostly why I say the problem with 4e is mainly that it replaced 3.5

As a "simplified dungeons and dragons focusing more on combat then storytelling" it works. To me the lost potential of 4e is that it kept trying to be "classic dungeons and dragons but not really" when it strength could have come from just dropping the pretense and going all out.

For example a strategy RPG pen and paper game for 4e.

Yet as a replacement for dungeons and dragons as we known it until now... it fails. An excellent standalone a horrible sequel.

[Muz]

D&D has strayed from the roleplaying route for a while now. If you want roleplaying, there are better systems, like FATE. D&D is well... like a combat based board game.

[Grek]

Top 3 problems with 4th edition:

1. Skill challenges. 4th edition replaced the 3rd edition system of "One person with the skill rolls 1d20+Skill Bonus vs. a number based on what they're trying to do." with Skill Challenges. In a Skill Challenge, what was supposed to happen was the party worked together, all of them using their various skills, to complete the challenge. The party had to roll a certain number of successes before rolling a certain number of failures if they wanted to succeed. What actually happened was the person with the best bonus rolled all the attempts, because anyone who was bad (or even not the very best) at a skill would generate lots of failures and make the whole party fail. It underwent a bunch of revisions, but a workable version was never achieved.

2. The Release Timetable. First, a brief history of D&D. Back in the 80s, the D&D brand was owned by a company called TSR. They released the 2nd edition in 1987 and made lots of money, but went bankrupt when the founder of the company died and it was taken over by his children, who did not have very good business sense. D&D was then bought up by WOTC, who decided that they would release their own edition. Cue 3rd Edition D&D in 2000. This was deemed to be a good idea and people liked the change for the most part. Then comes 3.5 edition. This was basically 3rd edition with more polish. It came out in 2003. People were a little miffed at having to update their core books, but ultimately they did it. But then in 2007, 4th edition is announced and all further publication of 3.5 comes to an abrupt halt. People declaimed it as a naked cash grab by WOTC, with the entire idea of the new edition to be to force D&D players to buy a whole new set of books. Lots of people just straight up refused to switch over.

3. The Bard Problem. In 4e, a bunch of character options people wanted to play were either released late in the development cycle or not at all. Bards, gnomes, druids, etc. were all cut from the initial release because less than 10% of players used those options. Unfortunately, the 4e development team didn't realize that 10% of players using an option translates to 25% of groups using that option. And that's just for one option. So cue players going "What do you mean I can't play a bard?" and saying "Well, screw that, let's play Pathfinder instead." This was especially bad due to #2 because people were already thinking "Well, if we play Pathfinder or just stick with 3.5, we can use all of these 3e/3.5e books we have laying around still."

[Stworca]

While i agree that 4e oversimplified d&d for me, and i didn't move over to that edition, one has to admit that 4e is more balanced.
3.5 is the edition of broken bullshit, and god slaying on level 1. You have to remain cool headed and balance out everything as a GM 

[catoblepas]

Simplification of existing options, homogenization of classes, weird gamey mechanics like the earlier healing shouts and minions. I have a bunch of 3.5 books already so I don't really feel inclined to shop around with them for stuff that won't mesh with my current system, particularly when the company in question isn't even producing new 3.5 stuff anymore (so I'm unlikely to be browsing their 3.5 stuff and have my eye catch on anything 4.0 related and buy it), and lastly, they completely screwed up their flagship campaign setting, Forgotten Realms-with the Spellplague. They had done some really (IMO) stupid things with the realms in the past like the axe crazy butchering of deities in the Time of Troubles and the Lady Penitent series. To be fair it was somewhat irritating to maneuver around/incorporate/retcon out these events that I found irritating, but they *really* went a bit far IMO with the spellplague-the setting is basically unrecognizable and holds nothing of real interest to me. I can't imagine buying any of their 4th ed FR sourcebooks even if something else about the edition had attracted me to it.

In short, a lot of things that either don't interest me, push me away, or just plain rub me the wrong way about the system and nothing really drawing me to it. There's really not enough reason for me to make the 'upgrade' (negative reason, if you want to be technical)

[sluissa]

I honestly don't like D&D all that much, it's always been a bit gamey and required far too much number crunching and fact checking to keep the pace of play at a decent speed, but they did kind of jump a shark with 4th edition. Everything everyone has said so far has been true and while ultimately, the fun you have is going to be determined far more by the group you play with than the system you play, it's simply got to be too much of a game and simply breaks the immersion any time you have to pick up a die or mess with pieces on a board.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but there is a class, specifically designed to push people(enemies and friends) around the board. That is, they're given all these predesigned powers which, notionally is supposed to mean they're good at tactics, but ends up just being. "I use my power to put that enemy here so that other people can get hits on him." and rarely "I push that guy off a cliff, because tactics." It's too gamey for me, sorry.

3.5 has plenty of problems in this way too, but good groups could get around it without having to break the game too hard. 4e basically locks you into these game mechanics unless you're willing to rewrite the game from scratch.

If you're set on playing D&D I'd personally suggest pathfinder. I'm not a fan of it either though, and would urge anyone to take a look at the honestly HUGE number of systems out there. Honestly, there are enough systems out there that ANYONE should be able to find what they want. The only issue is finding a group that all want the same thing. People generally are willing to work with a D&D based system, since they either know it or have heard of it. Not all that many people are willing to bother learning a whole new system without the guarantee that they'll find anyone else to play with.

[Neonivek]

D&D has strayed from the roleplaying route for a while now. If you want roleplaying, there are better systems, like FATE. D&D is well... like a combat based board game.

Yeah but most systems either do roleplay really well or combat really well. FATE for example only does Roleplay to the extent that it doesn't care about challenges and combat. To certain degrees... for example Exalted is just about the worst game mechanically while still being a competent system.

Dungeons and Dragons has a well constructed mechanical aspect that is somewhat unique when it comes to other pen and paper RPGs making it fun to play. While at the same time it doesn't entirely skimp over the roleplaying aspects making it also fun to roleplay.

The only system more mechanically grounded then dungeons and dragons is Robotech, though in its case it is because the roleplaying was tacked on (and expansion if you will).

Honestly, there are enough systems out there

Of the ones that are mechanically focused and more like a game AND function... the only ones I am aware of that exist... is dungeons and dragons, Shadowrun, and Robotech. (and Robotech is as far on the other end of the spectrum as you can get). MAYBE Rifts and the other d20s.

No, no there isn't enough systems out there. Sure there are plenty of systems where they are entirely about the setting and the mechanics are simply set dressing or ways to referee the situation. Or very mechanically minded games that don't attempt to balance themselves whatsoever.

The most frustrating aspects of roleplaying for me were all these systems I loved (Hero System and Exalted for example) and seeing how they just don't work. Hero system CAN work but it requires you to construct the game around the characters being balanced. While Exalted is broken, flat out, and requires you to either use lower power levels or to make sure you don't break it.

Do I mean dungeons and dragons is the best? Heck no! it has major flaws that cannot be denied. I only mean that "being gamey" isn't a flaw, it is the type of RPG it is.

---

Now what 4e did compared to 3.5 is it went ALL the other to the other end of the genre to almost Robotech levels. In that it went from 3.5's mechanically minded but still roleplay heavy play. To an extremely mechanically based and tangentially roleplay based gameplay.

Which has its appeal, but dungeons and dragons never divorced its roleplaying aspects.

Heck 4e did add a few genuine improvements to the series and allowed games to run smoother then before. The "at will" and "Encounter" spells worked great in allowing you not to feel helpless until your spell allotment came back. As well the "rest" and "second wind" allowed the game to continue on even after a dangerous encounter AND allowed Clerics not to be annoyingly absolutely necessary.

[Urist McSpike]

Roleplaying is really a function of the players, not the rules.  Sure, some systems can encourage it more than others will, but it's basically up to the players to do it or not.  My friends & I looked over the rules, and ixnayed it.  (And we've been playing D&D since 1st edition, if that affects our judgement.)

As has already been said, 4th Edition oversimplified it.  In a nutshell, 4E is "World of Warcraft on paper".  Resource management has been stripped down to every class having abilities that can be used "x times per play session/game week/game day/encounter".  Even the math has been simplified (and mini's/mapping encouraged) by re-writing measurements into "squares".  Instead of saying "one square = 5 feet" & spell descriptions/weapon ranges listing range in feet/yards, and making the players do the math, it just says "x squares".  Skills were also cut way down, if I recall.

Honestly, I feel that Pathfinder is the way to go instead.  If you aren't familiar with it, it's 3rd party stuff based on the OGL AD&D rules, written by a bunch of folks who have contributed a lot to AD&D over the years, and is commonly referred to as "AD&D 3.75".

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Regarding roleplaying in the game, rules like Reaction upon encountering a creature, Morale in combat, and hireling acceptance and loyalty are nice guides for roleplaying without commanding roleplaying.

By that I mean, you get to roleplay but sometimes there's a critical juncture where a roll applies. It's not completely free and open roleplaying, and it's not all game mechanics.

Doesn't Burning Wheel do roleplaying "combats" where you pick certain maneuvers and the other speakers pick their maneuvers and there are outcomes in the rules - much like a physical combat? I'd call that a very mechanical and structured form of roleplaying, but it could be very satisfying. Especially because a character skilled at communication would feel very useful.

Contrast with a D&D reaction system where you roll for reactions and it's either "hostile", "uncertain", or "friendly". You spot the Orcs, decide how you'll approach, and the DM rolls reactions with modifiers. Gets Uncertain. Maybe now you offer a bribe. DM rerolls, possibly with a positive modifier. If you get Hostile, I guess the Orcs felt your offer showed weakness or they could get more from you by slaying you. If you get Friendly, maybe the Orcs accepted the bribe or else thought better of attacking you after seeing how well-equipped you are. If you get Uncertain again, you might need to change tactics - maybe an exchange of information? I don't know. It's a lot more loose but it's not the complete rules-free roleplay I think some people envision.

There's an argument out there that the rules inspire and inform the gameplay. How you play is based on what the rules are about. If your game is all about cars with machine guns and armor racing down post-apocalyptic highways, you figure people won't try to set up a banking scheme. But they could - it's not like the rules exactly prohibit it. There just aren't good tools to handle the situation and the referee has to make it up. After all, there are no rules in Poker about bluffing, but it's present in every game and it's why people play.