Hatred for 4th Edition DND

I noticed it twice in the other thread but I have to ask ( and didn't want to derail the other thread) why so many people have a beef with 4th edition. Personally after playing 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and 4th the only edition I like more is 2nd, and that is mostly due to fond memories and a healthy dose of "realism/mortality". There isn't a single thing about 3rd edition that I don't think 4th improved upon except for the fact there is less freedom inside of character creation which really is just down to how creative you want to get. I don't say this because I want to start an argument (although feeding trolls can be rather amusing ), but rather am generally confused by the internet consensus.

I can't explain it. I played every version from OD&D to 3.5. I like different aspects of each, but I'd have to say 3 5 is my fav.

4th doesn't feel like D&D, it's like WoW.

Roland wrote: I can't explain it. I played every version from OD&D to 3.5. I like different aspects of each, but I'd have to say 3 5 is my fav.

4th doesn't feel like D&D, it's like WoW.

It is funny because I have heard that a bit. Here is how I look at it (since when people tend to say this they are talking about the different classes and archtypes). The fact that all the classes have a "role" to play is how DND has always been. Fighters/Paladins wear heavy armor and keep badies occupied while looking awesome. Mages get to wear fancy cloths and blow people up. 4th has just solidified that process and then gave the classes abilities to actually do those roles. I dunno how many times in 3rd and even some 2nd edition games where intelligent monsters just end up ignoring the fighters and jumping the other people. Before there was very little players could do about it other than try and get in the way/attack the monster.

If you are talking about the fact that your group tends to not roleplay/interact as much that isn't a fault of the edition but rather how your group is coming at the game.

My biggest issue with 4th is how abilities and spells have lost ambiguity for out of combat use, and what I feel is a change in combat tactics.

I find combat to be the least interesting part of most pen n paper systems. In 3rd ed, I could make a ninja who can climb walls and do acrobatics n stuff. I could make a wizard who can phase through walls or whatever. In 4th I feel like I am stuck rolling evocation wizards or beat em up fighters or their equivalents.

I know that the role-playing is completely up to the PC's, but I like a system that gives my character fantastical abilities for out of combat. Saying 4th is like WoW, is in my opinion a comment claiming that the 4th ed DnD system presents you with a number of effectively identical DPS classes, plus some Identical Healers, and some Identical Tanks.

In WOW, or SWTOR, or Everquest, any party eventually sums up to a tank who absorbs damage, a healer to remove damage, and DPS to down bosses. I find this boring personally. I think the fighter should have no magical way to protect the wizard by 'marking' or 'taunting'. The player should have to use tactics that force the situation.

So that said, damage and healing are similar between 3rd and 4th, the big changes are a lack of out of combat abilities and the integration of a streamline tanking system to regular combat like most MMO's have. I feel is more fun when it is chaotic.

Actually, I've played everything from roleplaying heavy to Monty Haul to Hank n Slash.

I can several (badly named) character, and I have a 4th rate fantasy short story series on my hard drive detailing my 2nd Ed Skills and Powers campaign. My big 3.5 campaign featured the like of Max Power and Trent Steele.... but they felt like characters first, and a set of numbers and abilites second. Even when feats came in in 3rd it was great, because now (with Weapon Finesse, etc) you COULD make a swashbuckler. That was just the tip of the iceberg. What was over complicated was simplified, etc.

I remember when they started promoting 4th. I was excited, I mean look how good 3rd, and 3.5 was......

Then it came out, and I stood in a bookstore and read thru the PHB and DMG for 4 hrs.

I put it back on the shelf and went home. It was WoW in a book.

I sat in the back at the Den for the better part of 2 1/2 hrs painting the other day.... while a D&D game went on...

All I heard was a bunch of people trying to max out their characters. Its the old "fluff vs crunch" argument. I tend to think those should be balanced.... but most 4th ed I see is all crunch.

There is a reason Pathfinder is beating the pants off D&D right now. and why D&D is rerelease old rulesets. And why Hackmaster 4th ed stuff is hard to find. People liked those rulesets better. If you like 4th, hey good for you. I liked the old WEG Star Wars game and I know people that hate it. I loved the Shadowrun setting and hate the rules. Look at the devide between 5th and 6th, and "fluff bunnies" vs "WAAC" in 40k? Different strokes for different folks. That said..... game systems tend to encourage a style of play. 4th just isnt a style of play I like (others at well, it seems)

We bought 4th Edition the day it came out. Keep in mind my group plays every Sunday (a bit tougher for us since Christams.. life.. pffaaa!) but we've had the same group more or less for almost 20 years. 4 of us have been playing for 20, the other 3-4 for about 10.

So we got the book, excited.. read through it.. seemed a bit odd.. but gave er a whirl. I think we made it through about 6 sessions, more or less the intro module to get used the the rules and that was it.

Biggest issues for me. Hit points are more or less the same for everyone. Yeah, small differences and over the levels they spread out, but not near as much as previous editions. At 5th level, almost every class has the option for the same abilities. Everyone has a pushback, everyone has a big damage, everyone has a crowd control. Where the basic fundamentals of the classes are different.. it seems anyone can step up to a certain role/ability if needed. WIth hit points, skills, and some of the other crossover stuff, it really felt there wasn't much of a difference between the classes at all. The one/day, three/day, one/encounter drove me crazy. It was exactly as if the abilties were on cooldown.. I hated this with a passion. Maybe WoW flashbacks.. whatever it was I didnt like it. Skills also seemed very glossed over.

What this all boils down to though, is that 4th not only felt incomplete but also seemed to lack any amount of depth. For instance, 3rd edition had large sections of both books dedicated to skills, spells, feats, adventuring, combat, equipment, etc. Lots of details for combat moves anyone could attempt, without an ability. Just packed with a ton of stuff. 4th was very bare, the books lacked information, and the artistic direction and feel of 4th was also a bit annoying.

Enter Pathfinder.. which had been around for awhile already. 3rd edition D&D was a nice change, although I will always love was Skills and Powers and the Combat book brought to 2nd edition. Of course, all of my most memorable games came from 2nd edition. But thrid was fresh, new.. and got rid of fricking Thac0. 3.5 fixed up alot of mistakes, expanded things out and while not vastly different, improved.

Pathfinder is basically 3.75. Improves again on everything in 3.5.. adds an almost limitless amount of options to every class, but which are still unique to that class. Some big complaints with 3.5 were slow periods in levels for certain classes, clerics cant do anything after spells were out, stuff like that. They went over the classes with a fine toothed comb and made character creation fantastic again. You do have too many options available, and no one will ever create the same character.. I love that. They fixed all combat issues and confusion (grapple, sunder, bullrush, etc.) with a very simple mechanic. Its fantastic. It's a superior game system, and a lot of fun, and I'm 100% biased.

Then, there is the cost. Your pathfinder rulebook, which is about 2'-2.5" thick is jammed cover to cover with information. Alot of your 3rd edition stuff is more or less adaptable, same for 3.5 so at least you dont like your old book are completly useless. Since Pathfinder is under the open gaming license, they can also publish alot of their stuff on the web. For isntance, www.d20pfsrd.com has al the classes, races, feats, skills, spells, monsters, everything you more or less need to play the game. The main book is cheap though.. and considering how much time you get out of your cost, I definitly dont mind buying a book every few months... but if you couldnt afford you wouldn't have to.

The irony of this all though is Pathfinder started outselling 4th edition .. oh, almost two years ago. Since its a d20 based system, they pay royalties to Wizards for using the system. Its still making Wizards money overall, but of course not as much if they were selling their own game.

Wizards is doing a heavy playtesting/community involvement blitz for 5th edition.. which is going to be out in the near future. They been trying to get alot of feedback on the new edition, what works, not works, what people want, all those things. Is it going to pay off? I cant see how it wont, in terms of 4th edition. Will it be better than Pathfinder, no idea. From what I've seen of the playtest stuff, it still seems dumbed down but I'll take a look at it.

Anyway, thats just my two cents from a long time D&D fan.

It became too much like a video game. You get all your health back after resting for 8 hours???? Even if you are down to 1.

Classes became too specific to certain gear. For example, thieves only get to use their abilities if they carry certain weapon types, light blades and the such.

Also I found the feats hard to choose because well....they do nothing. Power attack used to rock. Now it's....+2 damage? Holy stink.