People that dislike 4e, is this the reason?

[anomalousman]

Figured this didn't belong in the 'simple question' forum, but I was curious.  I'm developing a theory as to why this community isn't keen on 4e.  There were a lot of 3e haters as well, but it seems to me like the optimisation crowd, who are more aware of anyone of the madness lying in wait all over 3.5e (particularly at high or epic levels), have stayed away in droves.

I'll expound my hypothesis for this here, because I'm interested in whether anyone (whose opinion I respect) agrees.

I'll take it as read that everyone here knows how a 3.5e game falls apart as casters get their mojo, UNLESS the players and DM take careful steps to avoid the many and varied high power options.  If you disagree with that, then I won't agree, but almost certainly won't bother arguing.

Now 4e is much better at balance, and avoiding crazy corner cases.  It's not perfect, but really a serious improvement.  If you disagree with that, then we also have little to talk about.

Brief aside from the 'simple question' thread:
[spoiler=High level 4e Gameplay]

Well the mechanics of combat are quite different.  But the game plays pretty much the same as previous editions of D&D.  I can understand people liking one set of mechanics over another, and in particular the build system is very different and hard to break, but the actual game where you face each other across the table, is the same stuff.

We're on our 4th (and 5th) 4e campaign after countless previous ones with all editions back to AD&D.  I must say, combat is more fun now - going through rounds faster is much less boring.  But like I said, very little else has changed.

I've never played Shadowrun, so I can't comment.

I'm guessing your campaigns never got to very high levels. My group's playing a 4e campaign at 12th level - every battle takes well over an hour to resolve because there's WAY too many details to keep in mind and everyone has WAY too many things they can do with their actions. Even on lower levels, keeping EVERYTHING your character can do in mind is a handful.

I prefer 3.5 in that respect. Even WIZARDS don't have twelve thousand things to do with their actions every round.

My campaigns have definitely played at high levels in 4e (not epic yet), and yes they get intense.  But I've also played about 30 or 40 3.5e campaigns that simply fell apart at around level 15.  Battles were reduced to rocket tag, and it was just not fun any more.

I also tried epic in 3.5e a couple of times.  The half dozen battles we had also took an hour.  But it was an hour of one of the spellcasters explaining to the DM how their first turn 'I win' button was legal.  It was awful.   The DM literally never managed to find something that survived three rounds without slaughtering the whole party.  Enormous self-restraint could have limited that, but every battle at high levels seems to belong to whomever relaxes their self-imposed restrictions the most.

So, complain about the complexity of high level 4e play.  But not in comparison to high level play from earlier editions.  All the fun I've had there has been building 'I win' buttons.  Not actually using them (or carefully not using them).[/spoiler]

But many people who agree with all that still prefer the flavour of a 3.5e game over a 4e game.   My hypothesis is that the difference is somewhere in here:

@3e vs 4e: What are you guys talking about? I mean it's a completely different game with completely different world with completely different feeling. In 3e you've got zillion powerful spells for every life situation. In 4e you've got your static list of powers all of which are situational (that situation being "a party of four is crawling a dungeon") and rituals that cannot be compared to 3e magic system. In short:
3e: casters bend reality
4e: Indiana Jones

Now, I disagree with a part of that, and agree with part of that.  The 'different world' part is just wrong.  For example, I've played classic Eberron campaigns (and my more epic self-written Eberron campaigns) by the easiest of translations, and they work beautifully.  Our (two, so far) homebrew efforts are unaffected by the choice of system as well.  So somehow I'm getting that 'classic D&D' feeling, and grognards are not.  At some level, I am tempted to think that's just a failure of the imagination, or inexperience with previous major game shifts.  But I think there's a clue in the above quote. 

High level casters are different in 4e.  The majority of their out of combat role has moved to rituals, which cost to use.  Is the 4e feeling different to you precisely because high level casters don't own the universe?  At least, without getting an infinite supply of ritual components?  Is it because the out of combat roles of the characters are too based on skills, and not enough on spells (or equivalent)?  Do you want detect thoughts back?  Or Wish?  Or what?  If you tried to take the best D&D game you actually played and translated it, what would be hard to keep on the way?

[Ubernoob]

It simply doesn't have enough options that matter.  Here's what 3.5 has that 4E doesn't:
Entangle.  I'm sorry, but entangle alone is a deal breaker than me.  Reshaping the battlefield is Important.
Tactical combat (tripping, grappling, disarming, etc).  I like this stuff.
Attack recharge that is thematically cool (ToB, psionic focus).
Multithreats.  I like beguilers and bards and druids.
Skill system that matters at least some of the time.
Options.  3.5 psionics were pretty much the perfect balance for me.

4E is simply too simple.

[Caelic]

Nope.

My lack of interest in 4e (slightly different from "dislike") has very little to do with what a given class can or cannot do.  If that's anything, it's simply a symptom, not the underlying cause.

It's just that 4e offers me nothing I particularly want.

I don't really need another game that's focused almost exclusively on dungeon crawls.  I've been doing dungeon crawls for a long, long time, and they've gotten pretty old.

Sure, you can MAKE 4e work for other modes of play, but why bother when there are systems out there that do a better job of supporting those modes?

4e is all about "By golly, you WILL be balanced!"--and it pursues a paradigm in which "balanced" means "Everything that everyone can do is equally powerful at every level."

Again: not interested.  I don't think it's a particularly good paradigm to begin with.  I don't really need a game that's the roleplaying equivalent of safety scissors.  I'm a big kid now; I know not to run with the grown-up scissors.

Give me a game that's easy to tweak and tinker with.  Give me a hardcore gaming engine that requires the GM and players to make it their own, and that trusts them not to break it.

Alternately, give me a good flavorful rules-light game in which the mechanics are focused entirely on facilitating play in one genre, and which do so in a clever and engaging way.

4e is neither of those.  I'm sure it's a fine game of its type, but it's not the type I care to play.

[SixthDeclension]

For 4e, I simply find that all the options I have feel the same. I can hit you with my sword and push you. Someone else can make me hit you. It just doesnt excite me.

[Straw_Man]

 I win buttons weren't the reason I played spellcasters. Options, strategy and innovative use of a spellcaster was. Now 4E, their battlefield control mostly involves sliding enemies around, into things, off things, etc.

[Dictum Mortuum]

I don't know how much 4e changed since i read it, but for me the reason was simple: clerics -> healbots, wizards -> aoe blasters, etc. In 3rd edition you can play so many different characters with exactly the same class levels. In 4th however classes are transformed into some twisted one-trick ponies.

And it's not always for the power, really. Most of our IRL campaigns have a starting level of 1 and i'm certain we are not unique in that area. I like my utility spells so much. With the new edition they are obviously trying to open up the game to younger ages. It's simplified and doesn't require much thought.

[jameswilliamogle]

I'll echo many of the sentiments already.

4e is too simple.
3.5 is awesomely customizable.

Actually, the mechanics and new options for customization in 3.5 is the only thing that got me playing again after a 12 year hiatus.  The blander characters in 4e make me want to play less.  (Not really surprising considering the characters I like to play - Binders, Incarnates, Factotums, and Spellcasters, the most versatile classes in the game.)

What I DO like about 4e: there seems to finally be balance between all the classes at all the levels (optimization exceptions excluded).  BUT, that isn't enough to make me want to play it.

[anomalousman]

So Caelic has grown beyond D&D, and doesn't need a new version.

james and Dictum (and to some extent Ubernoob) are waiting for the equivalent of the non-core classes with odd mechanics to pique their interest.

Ubernoob wants some things that are already there, and entangle and more classes that do more charming and tricking.

Straw, Sixth and Ubernoob want, essentially, freer-form status effects.

That's a lot more... specific than I expected.  More to do with things that will change over the next few years as more material comes out, rather than "it's a different game".  Hmm.

[anomalousman]

Personally, I miss the variety of out of combat utilities as well.  But as a DM, I've generally found them quite easy to introduce.  I expect them to come out in official sources over time.

[SixthDeclension]

I dont want rules that cover general gameplay to be introduced in later "official" books. I expect that the core books will offer me all the rules that I'll need, so I dont have to buy other books.

[Eldariel]

My biggest dislike is the lack of customization on character; 3.5 multiclass system needed some work, but it was exactly as open as I want my character development to be. In 4.0, building a credible multithreat is pretty much a lost cause, your character will do one thing and do it well. Then you need the rest of the party to fill out the other roles. Also, I regularly game with small groups; 4e just doesn't feel too interesting for 3 players.

Finally, it doesn't fix anything I felt needed to be fixed. Further, it's got even more metagame mechanics than 3.5e, which I already disliked in 3.5; in my opinion, the whole concept of "encounter" should be kept far from the mechanics; it's simply a metagame tool, not a limit for characters' abilities. Late 3.5 added a lot of "per encounter" crap too, but at least it wasn't strongly present in the core product so houseruling it away was easy enough. It's a pretty key concept in 4.0 which really frustrates me. There's also the idea of "dailies" for every character, some of which just don't make any sense. Overall, forcing every character archetype to the same mold really is an immersion-breaker for me, when some of those abilities just don't make any sense. Also, the amount of options in the skill system has been reduced drastically; it needed tuning, but this wasn't the kind of tuning I was looking for.

Overall, I feel that instead of tackling the problems of 3.5 and fixing them, 4.0 threw the whole system out of the window and made a new, simplier one that doesn't take effort to balance. In other words, they took the easy way out. And quite frankly, I dislike the outcome.

[ninjarabbit]

Here are my reasons:

-Everyone feels like an unoptimized 3.5 fighter in combat. Everything is too simple and bland.

-Too heavily influenced by MMMORPGs. I have nothing against those games but if I wanted to play one I'd be playing one instead of D&D.

-WotC in general has left a sour taste in my mouth. A lot of the crap that was going on at Gleemax during the launch of 4th edition gave me a bad first impression. I don't like how the rules, races, and classes that should have been in there originally (and in previous editions' core books) are going to be spread out over several books. And knowing Wizards I fully expect 4.5 or even 5th edition to be out shortly, making the 4.0 books obsolete.

[Dumb-Age Master]

I have not taken a single look at 4e. I will continue not to take a look at 4e until I am forced to. I just got into DnD a year ago with 3.5e. I'm still learning new things about it and trying fun combinations, min-maxing and story-crafting my way to happiness. It would simply be to taxing to try out 4e. Then I'd have to worry about learning a new system when I haven't even mastered the other!

Call it willful ignorance, call it sticking to your guns when there are plasma rifles available, call it whatever. I don't care. I just want to continue to grow and expand on my 3.5e abilities/fun. Maybe, one day, when I can call myself a true 3.5e master, I'll start learning 4e. And I bet shortly after I start doing that, 4.5e or 5e will come out.

Just you wait and see.

[Kaelik]

My problem with 4e is simply that you can't do anything cool. There is literally nothing you could do that would impress me.

I have a character who literally never sleeps, and spends his time building or invading dungeons. Like making permanent walls, reshaping stone, and carving holes in anything.

I have another character who hovers around all day, invisible, and uses an undead he created as a mouth piece.

When you talk about doing cool things, every 4e players response is to pretend to do things you obviously can't do. That's stupid.

Every 4e character is good at doing damage and terrible at everything else. I haven't seen an impressive character that is obviously impressive when he isn't fireballing.

Hell, 3.5 non-casters are more impressive then 4e casters. It is a different game, because in this game, it's no items, five PCs, archetypes only, final destination.

[Ubernoob]

james and Dictum (and to some extent Ubernoob) are waiting for the equivalent of the non-core classes with odd mechanics to pique their interest.

More properly, we want interesting mechanics that represent the flavor of the class well.  Binders, psions, beguilers, and warblades had mechanics that represented the fluff they were about well and weren't headaches to use.  The big five are interesting, but what's more important is that a class is fun to use and the mechanics fit the fluff it is trying to represent.

Ubernoob wants some things that are already there, and entangle and more classes that do more charming and tricking.

More properly, I want to be able to effect the gameworld.  Physically and politically, I want there to be a way for the PCs to impact the world they live in.

Straw, Sixth and Ubernoob want, essentially, freer-form status effects.

Yeah, marks are stupid.  Making plants or tentacles come out of the ground and physically stop your opponent from getting to you is not.  That's COOL.

Edit: If two things are going to use the same mechanics there should be a real reason for it.  End of discussion.  If two PCs are different they should be able to do noticeably different things.

[altpersona]

the only thing that i activly dislike about 4e is a very minor thing..

branding..

they could have called it anything else.. and i would not have cared at all...

you can take a 1e pc and convert it to 2e and 2e to 2a and 2a to 3 > 3.5 but no further..

yes, there will be some slop along the way.. but its doable.. then you hit 4.0 and that old pc dosnt fit into the new mold..

as a system i think it works pretty well.. not my favorite but par for the course..

[anomalousman]

Nothing Cool

We just have different opinions here.  I love my 4e wizard, and the cool stuff he can do all the time with his cantrips.  This is a wizard that really feels like one, right out of the gate.  

I also have a character that never sleeps in 4e, by the way.  He doesn't reshape stone with his mind, but he could do that with rituals, if desired.  Just doesn't sound that amazing is all.  

Going beyond the ritual magic thing, if he could reshape stone without limits, I suppose that would be the end of combat or pretty much any other challenge.  ("I encase them in a stone box with no air holes" or " I cut them to ribbons with extruded stone spears").  And if you dump the combat rules then both editions look really identical.

With the hovering invisible guy with the undead butler: sounds like your unease is exactly focussed on high level spellcasters not being quite so impressive.  I think they're really impressive, myself.   I think we're just impressed differently.


Class building

I totally understand a preference for the 3.5 'building block' approach to class building and multiclassing.  The openness of the system was very pretty.  So, point taken.

There were advantages to the 4e structure that might not be casually obvious, however.  In 3.5e, if you had a really good idea for a gish, you had a nightmare jumping through hoops to make it come alive without gimping either fighting or magic.  And the gish was pretty much always lower power than just dumping the fighting part all together.  ("Thou shalt not lose caster levels!"  )

4e multiclassing makes those mixes work properly with much less care.  High level spellcasters really can use weapons if they invest.  High level fighters can use various kinds of magic if they try, without it being completely pointless.  So I totally disagree with:

In 4.0, building a credible multithreat is pretty much a lost cause, your character will do one thing and do it well.

Optimisation on PHB classes are already filling up with multi-threat ideas.  Every new class opens this up further.


Archetypes Only

A lot was said about these archetypes when 4e came out, and it's a vaguely useful starting point.  I have to say that in practice, the last two editions are pretty much equal here.  Even the PHB classes in 4e don't pigeonhole that accurately.  The value of the concept to try to organise the party, rather than just the individuals - and this was prevalent in (good) 3.5e optimisation as well as just the characters that did their one thing very well.  You need someone in the party to handle any given situation somehow.


"Skills don't work in 4e"

Several people mentioned this, but I honestly don't see it.  The skill system is almost identical, except that it's less of an auto-win/auto-lose after the first few levels.


"I haven't read 4e, and I don't want to"

Sure.

[Dumb-Age Master]

Several people mentioned this, but I honestly don't see it.  The skill system is almost identical, except that it's less of an auto-win/auto-lose after the first few levels.

...How do you do anything BUT win or lose at a skill check? Can you roll some sort of unseen obscurity on the dice that causes you to be in a state of winning and losing a skill check at the same? Quantum dice?!?!?!

If so, I may have to try 4e just for the theoretical physics.

[anomalousman]

james and Dictum (and to some extent Ubernoob) are waiting for the equivalent of the non-core classes with odd mechanics to pique their interest.

More properly, we want interesting mechanics that represent the flavor of the class well.  Binders, psions, beguilers, and warblades had mechanics that represented the fluff they were about well and weren't headaches to use.  The big five are interesting, but what's more important is that a class is fun to use and the mechanics fit the fluff it is trying to represent.

Beguilers, psions and warblades fit into current 4e mechanics beautifully.  Hell, warblades are more 4e than 3.5e.

Ubernoob wants some things that are already there, and entangle and more classes that do more charming and tricking.

More properly, I want to be able to effect the gameworld.  Physically and politically, I want there to be a way for the PCs to impact the world they live in.

As you should.  And I do too.  And as my 4e characters and players do all the time.  Honestly, I think you must have been in a rather odd playtest, or something.

My favourite 3.5e class was the beguiler.  And I enjoyed them the most outside combat.  I love that stuff.  I think we must be quite close in our actual goals.
 

Straw, Sixth and Ubernoob want, essentially, freer-form status effects.

Yeah, marks are stupid.  Making plants or tentacles come out of the ground and physically stop your opponent from getting to you is not.  That's COOL.

Immobilisation, with tentacle/plant fluff = cool.  And pure 4e.  I agree that more stuff like this needs to come out.  However, there are dangers as well.  

An example of what I'd like to see is an ability to create illusions.  This has been planned in house since well before the 4e release, and the reason I think they're taking their time is that illusions can really mess up the game table and force DMs to either capitulate or block the players.   I'd like to see new mechanics come out in a solid, clear way where players and DMs don't have to argue (too much) about what the effects of a given strategy will be.  While still encouraging creative uses.  A good example might be prestidigitation in both systems.  Solid fun.

Edit: If two things are going to use the same mechanics there should be a real reason for it.  End of discussion.  If two PCs are different they should be able to do noticeably different things.

I agree.  There are a lot of concepts that turn up again and again, though, and that's natural.  The movement/combat modifiers come to mind.  Marks are probably the least satisfactory of those, true.

[anomalousman]

Several people mentioned this, but I honestly don't see it.  The skill system is almost identical, except that it's less of an auto-win/auto-lose after the first few levels.

...How do you do anything BUT win or lose at a skill check? Can you roll some sort of unseen obscurity on the dice that causes you to be in a state of winning and losing a skill check at the same? Quantum dice?!?!?

Given that you're new to one system and haven't read the rules to the other, I'm not sure this will make sense, but:

3.5e allows you to allocate skill points as you level.  The advantages are that it's very flexible, and the disadvantage is that it can cause a lot of book-keeping issues for complicated builds.  Another, more subtle result is that in practice, at high levels, you pretty much never have to roll for anything but trivial or impossible tasks.  You're either crap at the relevant skill, or you're unbeatable.  Nearly all players put perfunctory amounts into pre-requisite skills, and over time they max the skills that are important to them.

4e just has two states per skill: trained or untrained (actually four states with feats, but let's ignore that for now.  Trained works like a maxed skill in 3.5e, and untrained acts like a perfunctory skill.  This is less flexible, but simpler.  The more subtle result is that in practice, the math works such that skill checks can be meaningful all the way through epic.