So I'm trying to rid myself of my 4e books...

[Jay]

I've explained this several times before.

And this time let's let a non 4e hater answer it for a change.

They've taken away the ability to make an individual character who is NOT combat related.

As long as your character can roll dice, this point is moot. At LVL 1 your character can have little in the form of unique skills but that is built with your character and molded by the DM you have to deal with. Nonetheless, they can choose a particular power or a particular feat to build on what direction they would like to head for. The options are there. All other complains in this regards are pretty much, "Shut up and role-play what you want to be".

They've neutered the individuality of the classes so that a thief is a different flavor of a fighter is a different flavor of a ranger is a different flavor of...

Every class is different and the differences only grow as levels come into play. There are many types of builds for classes, some being very interesting... I'm an evasion rogue on my weekend games every 2nd week and it's a blast. My rogue plays NOTHING like a Fighter. NOTHING!!! This argument is flawed.

As all characters have the same amount of abilities - both combat and non-combat - the differences are largely semantic. All characters have great combat skills, all characters have the same skills, etc. There is almost no way to build a party that can't do something. Healing? No need any more! We have surges! No thief? Well, Timmy the Mage has a great Dex so his pick lock is high enough for most things.

This to my opinion has to be the weakest argument 4e haters have in regards to 4e. What differences to these skills have compared to 3.5? The fact they all have them in some minor form? “OH SHIT, I GOT a free +4 to my ARCANA check! What, you have a +2? WHAT THE HELL, WE ARE THE SAME, THIS SUCKS!”

Good luck when the DM makes you try to beat a DC 20 check. Good luck rolling a 16+ on a consistent basis or even better, let’s roll a 21. This point is moot.

I LOVE the fact they did this… this to me brings added immersion to the game. So what if my character isn’t trained in Insight? It doesn’t mean he should have a 0 bonus to the skill and stand there like a blabbering idiot when he has to beat a DC 15 check. This allows players who aren’t trained in certain skills an actual chance to pass a check and do something cool instead of hoping to roll 20ies.

I like the fact they gave players the ability to have surges and heal themselves at the cost of limiting their turns, giving them second wind and heal checks. But does it compare to a healer? Fuck no. This argument is laughable. I play a Cleric with HF people and they can attest that my cleric heals are far more useful. I can heal for 20 to 35+, their healing surge heals for a mere 10-15 and limits their turn. As far as Clerics go, I feel that Shawn thinks they are OP since the Divine Power update come out.

At LVL 6, there are skills, I’d rather have my Cleric not even try… such as History checks or Arcana checks…. We have characters who excel in that… just like they won’t put all their eggs in a basket and try to do a Perception or Insight check and depend on it… but at least it’s fun… they may be lucky enough to be successful... and that “option” is fun.

Thief skills? Truly, some people can try to lockpick a door with their +4 modifier and try to roll 16+… someone who’s trained in it and is built for it needs to roll half as much. So if a DM plans ahead and goes… “fail the roll, must go in by the sewers and have to deal with endurance checks”, he caters to a well formed team. Once again… all in the power of a good DM.

They were so busy balancing all character classes that they forgot to ask themselves the biggest questions of all: "WHY would someone choose this class as opposed to a different one?" The answer in most cases is there isn't a reason other than the name or text description of the character.

Because all classes are different. You can take one of those shiny new classes and complain about them if you’d like, I know little of them but the traditional ones? A rogue isn’t a warrior. A sorcerer isn’t a wizard. A cleric isn’t a druid. A ranger isn’t a swordsmage.

Once again, I’ll state and I’ll state frankly, I bet all the icecream eaters in this thread are amongst the masses of the mundane who have jumped on the bandwagon to hate 4.0 have never played the game beyond a few game sessions and beyond LVL 3.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

Try #2 : What is wrong with 4e?

Its a fine board game, but it seems closer to heroquest than Dungeons and Dragons

I dislike the lack of variety for the mages, a good chunck of the original players handbook was nothing but spells spells spells.

It doesn't feel like it encourages roleplaying, it seems more about the dungeon crawl, which is fine up until a point.

It turned a game could be played with one set of rule books, some graph paper and dice, into something that really pushed you into getting, masses of scenary, mini's etc....

The books also seem really really fugging expensive as well.
[/QUOTE]

I don't know about the book prices as that's a personal opinion and non relevant to 4.0.

I still feel your problems depends completely on how your DM runs your game.

 

[Dave]

I'm happy for you, Jay. You are better than me and are a much better roleplayer. I don't like 4e and think you're full of beans and giving the system much more than its due. The things I've posted have been seen in several games across several groups all the way up to 10th level.

But I guess my experiences don't count because they are different than yours. Whatever. You asked, I answered.

 

[Covar]

I've explained this several times before.

And this time let's let a non 4e hater answer it for a change.

...

So you want people to tell you what they dislike about 4e, but don't want anyone who dislikes 4e answer your question? Good to know.

 

[Jay]

Reading is serious business.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

I'm happy for you, Jay. You are better than me and are a much better roleplayer. I don't like 4e and think you're full of beans and giving the system much more than its due. The things I've posted have been seen in several games across several groups all the way up to 10th level.

But I guess my experiences don't count because they are different than yours. Whatever. You asked, I answered.

Why the sour grapes? Was my explanation too blunt?

Sorry mate. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. eace:

 

[Dave]

Reading is serious business.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

I'm happy for you, Jay. You are better than me and are a much better roleplayer. I don't like 4e and think you're full of beans and giving the system much more than its due. The things I've posted have been seen in several games across several groups all the way up to 10th level.

But I guess my experiences don't count because they are different than yours. Whatever. You asked, I answered.

Why the sour grapes? Was my explanation too blunt?

Sorry mate. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. eace:

It wasn't too blunt but it totally discounts my arguments as if they are invalid and I don't have the want or need to validate my own experiences. I don't like the game, I've given my reasons and I'm not going on a JCM-esque rant to continue to argue it.

And my feeling aren't necessarily hurt, I'm not just in the mood for a protracted battle over something inconsequential. I'm in a pissy mood.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

I've explained this several times before.

Let's let a non-antagonizing 4e hater answer this for a change.

They've taken away the ability to make an individual character who is NOT combat related. They've neutered the individuality of the classes so that a thief is a different flavor of a fighter is a different flavor of a ranger is a different flavor of...

Rangers were originally a kit for Fighters. They've always been a different flavor of fighter.

The thief thing, I'll agree with. Thieves used to be more for what they could do outside of combat. In the first edition game I play in, we always need a thief to get through doors and disable traps that can't be poked. Now, they're sneak attack machines. As long as somebody is trained in thievery, no need for a thief.

As all characters have the same amount of abilities - both combat and non-combat - the differences are largely semantic. All characters have great combat skills, all characters have the same skills, etc.

Ah, but with out of combat skills, what's stopping each member from specializing in certain roles? Have the high wisdom cleric be the spotter. Have the high dex ranger be the thief.

There is almost no way to build a party that can't do something. Healing? No need any more! We have surges! No thief? Well, Timmy the Mage has a great Dex so his pick lock is high enough for most things.

Combat takes long enough that eventually, you might need healing beyond your second wind. In the game you were running, we probably would have been sunk if Gruebeard didn't have the ability to Lay on Hands.

Yes, I know that the rules are guidelines, etc. But why should we have to houserule the individuality back into the game.

This.

They were so busy balancing all character classes that they forgot to ask themselves the biggest questions of all: "WHY would someone choose this class as opposed to a different one?" The answer in most cases is there isn't a reason other than the name or text description of the character.

Answered on previous page.

 

[Jay]

It wasn't too blunt but it totally discounts my arguments as if they are invalid and I don't have the want or need to validate my own experiences. I don't like the game, I've given my reasons and I'm not going on a JCM-esque rant to continue to argue it.

And my feeling aren't necessarily hurt, I'm not just in the mood for a protracted battle over something inconsequential. I'm in a pissy mood.

Still love you Dave.

 

[fade]

Maybe it's a bandwagon, or maybe it's a bunch of people who've all come to the same conclusion. I've heard quite a few people make Dave's arguments (about 4e and about MMOs, too). I can't imagine they're all circle-jerking each other. I read the books. I honestly didn't play. But I did come to the same conclusion before I read anything on the web. The first impression the Player's Handbook gives is that of a melting pot with generic classes. Maybe it's not right, but that's certainly the way it feels, and that means a lot.

I'll agree with some of your points--it never made a whole lot of sense that "not trained"="totally incompetent". But then again, there's nothing that keeps a 2nd or 3rd ed. mage from picking up a sword, either, as long as they don't mind a -4 penalty.

 

[Gusto]

Man you guys are gonna hate me.

I like 3.5 and 4e.

 

[Chibibar]

I try 4e we got to around level 10 ish after 4 months of playing (almost every other week with friends) but it is just not the same as 3.5 and below. The combat system IS much faster.

I kinda like both, but I think the D&D feel is lost with 4e IMO. It is a fine game for people who are new and want something quick and play.

all characters are buffed in all aspect but I think there is something missing that I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[Dave]

I try 4e we got to around level 10 ish after 4 months of playing (almost every other week with friends) but it is just not the same as 3.5 and below. The combat system IS much faster.

I kinda like both, but I think the D&D feel is lost with 4e IMO. It is a fine game for people who are new and want something quick and play.

all characters are buffed in all aspect but I think there is something missing that I can't quite put my finger on it.

Individuality.

 

[HCGLNS]

I try 4e we got to around level 10 ish after 4 months of playing (almost every other week with friends) but it is just not the same as 3.5 and below. The combat system IS much faster.

I kinda like both, but I think the D&D feel is lost with 4e IMO. It is a fine game for people who are new and want something quick and play.

all characters are buffed in all aspect but I think there is something missing that I can't quite put my finger on it.

Individuality.[/quote]

I would say rule restricted individuality instead.

It is a fine game for people who are new and want something quick and play.

That's exactly what 4E is supposed to be, the game for people to begin their buying cycle.

And it's -5 for 2nd Ed Mages :tongue:

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

Man you guys are gonna hate me.

I like 3.5 and 4e.

We can never be friends. Ever.

 

[Gusto]

Man you guys are gonna hate me.

I like 3.5 and 4e.

We can never be friends. Ever.[/QUOTE]

I go both ways.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

dice-curious

 

[Reverent-one]

Man you guys are gonna hate me.

I like 3.5 and 4e.

Same here. I may prefer 4e, but I'll play either of them.

I try 4e we got to around level 10 ish after 4 months of playing (almost every other week with friends) but it is just not the same as 3.5 and below. The combat system IS much faster.

I kinda like both, but I think the D&D feel is lost with 4e IMO. It is a fine game for people who are new and want something quick and play.

all characters are buffed in all aspect but I think there is something missing that I can't quite put my finger on it.

Individuality.[/QUOTE]

I must disagree, different classes play differently, even within the same power source or within the same role.

 

[Shakey]

This seems pretty close to the hate that 3rd ed had when it first came out. I had friends who would not touch it with a ten foot pole. No one had to think, ADD was about numbers and lots of dice, etc. Maybe it's different, but maybe not. I haven't really explored 3rd ed let alone 4th ed. Things change because they want to sell more stuff. Deal with it or keep using your old books.

 

[Math242]

yeah i was an avid 2.5 player and when 3 came out, i was like wtf is this crappy shit.

I kinda have this feeling with 4E.

Except 4E seems so watered down that i'll have an easier time dming this for 5 PC with 0 rpg experience.

 

[Shawn]

I guess one thing I'm confused on his how individuality was something that 3.5 offered moreso than 4.0. When it comes down to it everything was exactly the same number wise. Some classes you hit someone with a sword. Some classes you hit them with a hammer. Some classes you hit them with fireballs. Either way you pick up some dice, roll them, and add them up.

 

[elph]

DnD's for pansies.. play Rolemaster, then come complain to me.

 

[Dave]

DnD's for pansies.. play Rolemaster, then come complain to me.

ROLEMASTER!!

I swing my sword. *rolls % dice* *adds number to sword skill* *checks slashing chart* (*check offensive number versus defense/armor*) *gets number and crit chart to roll on* *access correct crit chart* *rolls % dice* *read crit* *resolve attack*

He swings back...



Massive battles in RM take HOURS!

Although I do have one great story from RM. I had a halfling archer named Naver McNally who ALWAYS put points into his bow skill, movement and had some small magic to make him harder to see. My GM had us go through this whole thing leading up to the main bad guy, who burst into the room and started to dialogue. He had about 4 sentences leave his mouth and I said "Fuck it." *twang*

Two open ended rolls later I had a puncture crit in the E column. Rolled 00. Badass mo-fo DEAD! GM was sad.

 

[elph]

Yeah, my GM has a strong dislike for d20 systems (I have a problem with limited leveling systems [d20]). So we're doing Rolemaster instead. It's... okay. Complete custom campaign, usually made up on the fly. I'm not looking forward to getting into combat because of what you say above. It's just so long and drawn out for the simplest action.

For a game called Rolemaster, they should have called it Rollmaster (stupid, I know, but it fits).

 

[Dave]

Yeah, my GM has a strong dislike for d20 systems (I have a problem with limited leveling systems [d20]). So we're doing Rolemaster instead. It's... okay. Complete custom campaign, usually made up on the fly. I'm not looking forward to getting into combat because of what you say above. It's just so long and drawn out for the simplest action.

For a game called Rolemaster, they should have called it Rollmaster (stupid, I know, but it fits).

http://www.nihsen.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=41

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

Play World of Synnibar

 

[Baerdog]

Play FATAL.

 

[Gusto]

Play FATAL.

Do NOT play FATAL.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

Read the review of FATAL.

Warning: Contains graphic descriptions of things you didn't need to read

---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------

Also, I'm completely serious. Play World of Synnibar. Strict RAW. Proceed to accidentally break the game.

When we played, we managed to do space travel because I kicked a member of the party who was a ghost really hard. We then terraformed a planet, caught the attention of a black space dragon, killed it by throwing a single missile at it, sold its scales to become billionaires, bought more missiles and items that allow all of us to breathe in space, and threw the missiles really hard at planets. Destroying them. We destroyed Synnibar, pissing off the gods. One of the party members changed the color of the sun, rendering the gods powerless. Who we then killed by throwing missiles at them.

 

[Gusto]

So awesome.

 

[SpecialKO]

Allen's description reminds me of HoL, the RPG you're supposed to play while drunk because it's awesome.

You can die randomly during character creation, and have to re-roll.

Most memorable game I remember was destroying most of the planet by covering it in liquid nitrogen trying desperately to kill a bad guy who resembled the little singing girl from Pepsi's late 90s TV ads.

 

[Shakey]

I loved playing HoL, but haven't played it in a long time.

It's one of those games you can spontaneously play anywhere and with anyone. After one session you know everything there is to know about the game, so you don't really need the books anymore. If anyone argues about rules the HoLmeister just kills them. Raid someones board games for a couple D6 and you're set to play.

 

[Krisken]

2nd edition is still where I'm at, as unbalanced and unwieldy as that was. I think that 4th made every character "balanced for combat".

Of course, I still play the D6 West End Star Wars RPG over the D20 game. Stupid Jedi don't get levels, dammit!

 

[Null]

If your roleplaying game experience boils down to what people hit things with, then I never want to be at the same table as you. Some of the best sessions I've had have been completely without combat. For example, in our 3.5 campaign:

Entering an exotic city with a caravan, negotiating prices on one cargo and then picking up another, exploring the streets, and the tasks we'd be given in order to get certain things we needed - or just wanted. It was awesome - my character, a sorceror, had high charisma and good intelligence so he did a lot of the talking, which played off the Half-Orc Fighter who kept butting in with stupid or offensive remarks to our hosts, which I'd then have to smooth over. It was great, we were all playing in character, and we still had to make gather information, diplomacy, sense motive, etc checks, to figure out if we were just being jerked around or to really make headway with the NPCs.

Does that happen in 4e?

And for SW, I play the d6 in a PbP game. It's excellent.

 

[Chibibar]

If your roleplaying game experience boils down to what people hit things with, then I never want to be at the same table as you. Some of the best sessions I've had have been completely without combat. For example, in our 3.5 campaign:

Entering an exotic city with a caravan, negotiating prices on one cargo and then picking up another, exploring the streets, and the tasks we'd be given in order to get certain things we needed - or just wanted. It was awesome - my character, a sorceror, had high charisma and good intelligence so he did a lot of the talking, which played off the Half-Orc Fighter who kept butting in with stupid or offensive remarks to our hosts, which I'd then have to smooth over. It was great, we were all playing in character, and we still had to make gather information, diplomacy, sense motive, etc checks, to figure out if we were just being jerked around or to really make headway with the NPCs.

Does that happen in 4e?

And for SW, I play the d6 in a PbP game. It's excellent.

Alas, I think 4e could do some RP, but many of the skills are reduce (clump together) it is gear toward more of combat style play than pure RP sense.

You can still RP in 4th in the scenario above, but more than likely it is up to the GM.

 

[Dave]

You can still RP in 4e but it's no longer the main focus and they HAVE included skill challenges, which is like social combat. I personally don't care for the skill challenges.

But what Chibi was saying is true - with ALL characters having ALL skills there's no need for specialization. ANY two characters who have the same stat have the same skill unless the character is highly trained, in which case he has a +5 bonus. So a 10th level thief with an 18 DEX has a Thievery skill of 14 (5 from level, 4 from stat and 5 from training) while a 10th level MAGE with an 18 DEX has a 9 skill (5 from level & 4 from stat). This means that a DC 20 (Heroic Tier default) lock will be picked 70% of the time for a thief who has trained in this sort of thing his whole life. The mage? 45% of the time. Never having done it before. Makes sense to me.

Yes, a GM can set a higher DC. Yes, a GM can restrict over certain DCs from being opened by untrained. But this is homebrews and we are talking base product. If picking a lock is successful 45% of the time why bother taking a Thief at all? If you fail just try again in a second. You'll ALWAYS eventually succeed.

THIS is the individuality they took away.

 

[Chibibar]

You can still RP in 4e but it's no longer the main focus and they HAVE included skill challenges, which is like social combat. I personally don't care for the skill challenges.

But what Chibi was saying is true - with ALL characters having ALL skills there's no need for specialization. ANY two characters who have the same stat have the same skill unless the character is highly trained, in which case he has a +5 bonus. So a 10th level thief with an 18 DEX has a Thievery skill of 14 (5 from level, 4 from stat and 5 from training) while a 10th level MAGE with an 18 DEX has a 9 skill (5 from level & 4 from stat). This means that a DC 20 (Heroic Tier default) lock will be picked 70% of the time for a thief who has trained in this sort of thing his whole life. The mage? 45% of the time. Never having done it before. Makes sense to me.

Yes, a GM can set a higher DC. Yes, a GM can restrict over certain DCs from being opened by untrained. But this is homebrews and we are talking base product. If picking a lock is successful 45% of the time why bother taking a Thief at all? If you fail just try again in a second. You'll ALWAYS eventually succeed.

THIS is the individuality they took away.

^-- bingo. Of course at higher levels the success goes even higher. I do miss the individual spells and effects in 3.5 and older. 4e do have (once a day spells, once per encounter etc etc) but it is just not the same.

But I have to agree that magic users got a major buff is spell usage with 4e. Usually 1st level mages get 1 level spell (3 if you have high int) same with cleric but with Wis and you are done (per rest) and have to rely on your crappy combat skill or good RP to participate.