#1 - Try bringing it up every once in awhile during game (not too often, though!). For example, when the inevitable annoying rules glitch happens in 3e, bring up why it wouldn't happen in 4e (if applicable).
#2 - Sometime when the DM isn't able to run, ask if folks would like to try 4e out for a session, with you running. Don't use Keep on the Shadowfell for this; in the words of the Admiral, "It's a trap!"
#3 - Lend the DM the DMG (if you have it). That should sell him, at least.
#4 - Give it time. My Thursday & Sunday groups aren't happy with the lmited number of options available right now; their tune may change in the future.
Keep in mind there's a very real possibility they won't like 4e. My Tuesday group praised the system up and down, but loathed how challenging it is compared to old familiar 3e. Drives me nuts, but whatever; D&D is D&D, playing any edition is better than none.
You could try starting a conversation. See what the likes/dislikes of the players are. Come with good arguments and then let them decide what they want. Convincing them to run a test 4th game should be an option.
When playing and then every time when a glitch occurs saying why 4th would be better...well...no one likes a know it all arrogant bastard. I think I'd hit the DM in the face after a while. 4th isn't perfect, nor is 3.x, nor anything else. Everything has Pro's and Con's and not 1 is better then the other. So if people enjoy 3rd or 4th edition let them. Screw the bastards who'd try to play a different edition then YOU want and enjoy most.
Do not try to force 4th edition on them. Do not mention how it is in any way "superior" to 3.5 or any other system - all you'll do is annoy your friends, and lose all credibility. You'll become "that 4th ed guy," and no one will take any of your opinions seriously - they'll see them all as veiled attempts to force an "inferior" system upon them.
Play 4th ed with a group that wants to play it. Enjoy 3.5 with the people who want to play it. Do *not* attempt to coerce a 3.5 group into 4th ed - they won't fall for it.
Get a copy of the quickstart rules that were used at the pre-release games at various cons. I think there is a copy in KotS and you can also find it on ENWorld. Give that to the players instead of giving them all a copy of the PHB. Don't overwhelm them with information at first. Just give them enough info to play and see if they like it enough to learn more.
If they are already skeptical, don't hand them a 300 page rulebook and ask them to read it. You can probably convince a skeptical person to read 4 pages of notes to get ready for a game.
Definitely give them pregens, with all the information they need to play the character printed on their sheet (i.e. give full descriptions of every power, racial ability, etc so they don't have to look anything up during the game).
Run them through a relatively straightforward 5-6 encounter one-shot dungeon. Try to tailor the encounters to highlight some of the key differences between the editions. For example:
Use varied terrain (pits, cliffs, rubble, stairs, ledges, streams, etc).
Highlight the streamlined skill system and maybe have one skill challenge.
Use varied monsters in each encounter (like soldiers protecting leaders or artillery) and definitely sprinkle in minions.
I ran my own playtest game before the rules were officially released with four different groups of gamers. All of them had fun and the closest thing to a negative comment I got was "I'm not sure that was D&D, but I enjoyed it."
All the members in my party are totally opposed to fourth edition, yet none of them except me have done any reading on it.
Based on many posts on these forums this seems a common trait among many of the most vociferous h4ters.
I have done some research and the such, and it looks like a lot of fun. How can I get the rest of my party to try it out?
They're supposed to be your friends. Talk to them.
I would agree that a playtest is probably going to be the best salespitch. When you do a playtest, do it like this:
Get a copy of the quickstart rules that were used at the pre-release games at various cons. I think there is a copy in KotS and you can also find it on ENWorld. Give that to the players instead of giving them all a copy of the PHB. Don't overwhelm them with information at first. Just give them enough info to play and see if they like it enough to learn more.
If they are already skeptical, don't hand them a 300 page rulebook and ask them to read it. You can probably convince a skeptical person to read 4 pages of notes to get ready for a game.
Definitely give them pregens, with all the information they need to play the character printed on their sheet (i.e. give full descriptions of every power, racial ability, etc so they don't have to look anything up during the game).
Run them through a relatively straightforward 5-6 encounter one-shot dungeon. Try to tailor the encounters to highlight some of the key differences between the editions. For example:
Use varied terrain (pits, cliffs, rubble, stairs, ledges, streams, etc).
Highlight the streamlined skill system and maybe have one skill challenge.
Use varied monsters in each encounter (like soldiers protecting leaders or artillery) and definitely sprinkle in minions.
I ran my own playtest game before the rules were officially released with four different groups of gamers. All of them had fun and the closest thing to a negative comment I got was "I'm not sure that was D&D, but I enjoyed it."
I actually think this is a really bad idea; from the information given by the OP it's pretty clear that they all have played role-playing games before, and assuming they have at least some experience with the D20 system it should be pretty easy for them to pick up on the new rules.
I would stay clear of pre-generated characters. While they might be a good idea for first time role-players, any group of players who has played for a number of years is probably able to create characters which are both deeper and more fleshed out. Which is why the might not like having a pregen named Fightor, whose entire personality and background is a series of numbers and the line "I like swords.", shoved at them.
One of the most common, at least as far as I've been able to tell, preconceptions about 4e is that it's all about the combat and is essentially a series of dungeon crawls, which is why it's a bad idea to use a dungeon when trying to convince people to switch to 4e. That being said, interesting combat is the one thing that 4e does really well, so make sure that there is some combat involved. My advince would be to read the sample adventure in the DMG and do the exact opposite.
The best way, in my opinion, to get your group interested in 4e (or any other system for that matter) is to tell them what you like about it.
I actually think this is a really bad idea; from the information given by the OP it's pretty clear that they all have played role-playing games before, and assuming they have at least some experience with the D20 system it should be pretty easy for them to pick up on the new rules.
I would stay clear of pre-generated characters. While they might be a good idea for first time role-players, any group of players who has played for a number of years is probably able to create characters which are both deeper and more fleshed out. Which is why the might not like having a pregen named Fightor, whose entire personality and background is a series of numbers and the line "I like swords.", shoved at them.
One of the most common, at least as far as I've been able to tell, preconceptions about 4e is that it's all about the combat and is essentially a series of dungeon crawls, which is why it's a bad idea to use a dungeon when trying to convince people to switch to 4e. That being said, interesting combat is the one thing that 4e does really well, so make sure that there is some combat involved. My advince would be to read the sample adventure in the DMG and do the exact opposite.
The best way, in my opinion, to get your group interested in 4e (or any other system for that matter) is to tell them what you like about it.
If their best chance at getting them to try it is to run a one-shot adventure, then why spend any time going through character creation? Ask them what they want to do as far as class roles go, hand them a sheet, put them at the entrance of the dungeon, and get to the action.
It doesn't matter if they wanted to be a certain race, because the class is more important more often. It doesn't matter if they are poor orphans or heirs to the throne, because the monsters don't care. At the end of the evening, even if they decided to give 4E an honest chance, they will then be making their own characters anyway, so it isn't like they would be stuck with whatever they played that evening.
But why do they dislike 4E? That is the single most important thing to me.
If they simply don't want to learn a new system or spend money on new books, then it is a hard sell. If it is something else, then there may be a more direct remedy.
If, for example, they want to wave the "customization" flag, then you can customize a 3.X character. All the way into incompetency. Make the pary rogue, only customize them so that they don't have any open lock, disable device, hide, move silently, search, spot, social skills, or anything else that might be useful. Load them up on crafts and professions like cobbler, cooper, and farmer. Just to further stretch the limits of customization, make sure that all of your feats are weapon proficiencies. Top it off with a half-orc, just so your skill points take a hit, as well as the social skills that you already invested no points in.
As soon as one of them says anything about you not being a good rogue (which might be after you failed to detect and deactivate the trap that killed you and another party member or three), make sure that you mention that you wanted to take full advantage of the customization options presented by 3rd edition.
If they say that it's too much like a video game, then maybe you tell them that you don't know if you will make it to the next game, because you want to spend some quality time playing Neverwinter Nights or some other video game based on 3.X rules.
If they say that there is no roleplaying, then you can either not roleplay during a session or point out every time that they don't roleplay (and top it off with a comment like "If we aren't going to roleplay I would rather play 4E" or something
).i tried 4th edition and after getting my friends into it, i want to go back to 3.5, but now i cant, maybe you are also about to make a mistake and youd be better off sticking with 3.5
I would offer to DM a demo game. If this is to sell the system come up with enough to fill a usual session for your group, showcase the mechanics and RP freedom and 1 or so combats. Most importantly, if you're selling something make sure your demo is good. Take a good while and work on it.
If you're pressed on the time one of the entries from the 1st Expert Dungeon Master Competition(in the DM advice board) would probably be a good choice.
So I would suggest getting your DM to put you through the sample adventure. Just make sure you and the DM have thoroughly read the players guide beforehand and try to have a fairly balanced party that tries to fill all the roles. Our party's weakness has been not having a striker and that has really hurt us fighting bosses.
Your DM might be interested in knowing that it takes a lot less time to plan out encounters under the new system. That reason alone caused our DM to strongly encourage us to switch. Also the player in my group who does not want to spend all of his time doing math and mainly wants to roleplay likes the system because there are fewer numbers to keep track of and fewer dice to role. None of us bring calculators to the game anymore. My main attraction to 4E is that all of the races and classes seem so far to be fairly balanced and interesting throughout all levels of play. I liked 3E a lot, but 4E is overall more fun for everyone.
To all 4E lovers, not OP in particular: Some people just don't like 4E and will stay with 3E.
Tough noogies.
And so it happens. D&D Land is in Civil War.
To all 4E lovers, not OP in particular: Some people just don't like 4E and will stay with 3E.
Tough noogies.
I am fine with people not liking 4E and sticking with 3E. But the question here is how to convince people who are unwilling to even try or look at it to give it a shot. My DM has said that the time and effort he saves planning encounters is worth switching. For me it was more balance and making all of the classes fun to play at high levels. For another member of the group it is simpler math. For the power gamer in our group it is finding brand new exploits that he has never tried before and the fun from learning new rules.
it screams world of warcraft (or other mmo rpg)
Elves = night elves
Eldarin = Blood elves
Dragonborn = Draenei
Limiting options (set features and trees)
no multiclassing (WoW you can't multiclass)
Roles are forced
Minotuars= tauren
The Hype about tieflings and dragonborn
each class is forced into a role
you have to uber twink your equipment in order to survive
Differences
quasi vancian system
(when will vancian casting ever go away?)
a few extra races and other options
this is an MMORPG twinks wet dream
It is also what console gamers have waited for.
4th edition is the twinks fantasy
it screams world of warcraft (or other mmo rpg)
Elves = night elves
Eldarin = Blood elves
Dragonborn = Draenei
Limiting options (set features and trees)
no multiclassing (WoW you can't multiclass)
Roles are forced
Minotuars= tauren
The Hype about tieflings and dragonborn
each class is forced into a role
you have to uber twink your equipment in order to survive
Differences
quasi vancian system
(when will vancian casting ever go away?)
a few extra races and other options
this is an MMORPG twinks wet dream
It is also what console gamers have waited for.
all of those races were playable in 3.5, except ya know dragon born aren't like draenei at all they arent tentacle headed glowing space aliens, and eldarin are like the highelves of wow that aren't even playable im calling this a stretch
and by forced into a role which is not true, you actually meant all classes actually get to have a role.
items were blatantly more important in 3.5
and since wow is just a carbon copy or warhammer (the world started as a warhammer world that was rejected), and warhammer is a war game based around D&D, then D&D is just like... wait for it... is just like D&D!!!
grow up, your not stupid, but your argument is both stupid, and so 3 months ago, its old, its tried its untrue. Tuck away your ears and put away the torch, no one is interested in your fabrications.
All the members in my party are totally opposed to fourth edition, yet none of them except me have done any reading on it. I have done some research and the such, and it looks like a lot of fun. How can I get the rest of my party to try it out?
There's nothing you CAN do to get them to try it out, just like there's nothing I can do to get my group to play a psionics or evil campaign. For some odd reason, they think evil means Evil Retarded and the DM is stuck on psionics being sci-fi.
As a note, our group tried 4E and soon lost interest in it.
all of those races were playable in 3.5, except ya know dragon born aren't like draenei at all they arent tentacle headed glowing space aliens, and eldarin are like the highelves of wow that aren't even playable im calling this a stretch
and by forced into a role which is not true, you actually meant all classes actually get to have a role.
items were blatantly more important in 3.5
and since wow is just a carbon copy or warhammer (the world started as a warhammer world that was rejected), and warhammer is a war game based around D&D, then D&D is just like... wait for it... is just like D&D!!!
grow up, your not stupid, but your argument is both stupid, and so 3 months ago, its old, its tried its untrue. Tuck away your ears and put away the torch, no one is interested in your fabrications.
sorry
but to me, when i first read 4e phb, everything sounded like an mmorpg.
i still play 3.5
everybody houserules 4th edition
3.5 needed less houserules than 4e
things i dislike about 4e
they crippled the rogues primary features (trapfinding and sneak attack)
in fact, they totally erased skill monkeys
wizards now have to be the AoE damage dealers
Fighters have to be tanks now
Wands of spell spamming don't exist nor does the use magic device skill
(i wish there were still wands of cure light wounds in the game, even if mechanically twisted)
the fact most of my favorite classes cannot be properly converted
(sorcerer, arcane trickster, daggerspell mage, duskblade, beguiler, Druid (with pet) and various triple classed characters)
the value of a feat is a lot less now
(feats are supposed to be special and grant huge benefits)
the fact i get yelled at for making races with penalties, 8 square speed or rapier proficiency.
not bieng able to use penalties to buy off excessive bonuses
things i like with 4e
less work on the dm
sorry
but to me, when i first read 4e phb, everything sounded like an mmorpg.
i still play 3.5
everybody houserules 4th edition
3.5 needed less houserules than 4e
i stopped reading there, becuase i realised your either joking, a fishing style troll, or i need to retract a part of my last post about you. (not in a good way)
edit: i went back and read it anyways, you have no idea what your talking about so your not dumb, just clueless or making stuff up, or we are in some strange time warp in similar fashion to that movie where the mailbox was a time portal and your 3-6 months behind in real time
and as a rule you should not state opinion as fact.
i stopped reading there, becuase i realised your either joking, a fishing style troll, or i need to retract a part of my last post about you. (not in a good way)
edit: i went back and read it anyways, you have no idea what your talking about so your not dumb, just clueless or making stuff up, or we are in some strange time warp in similar fashion to that movie where the mailbox was a time portal and your 3-6 months behind in real time
and as a rule you should not state opinion as fact.
sorry
i was going for a little bit of bad humor, not a good joke, and i like to post, leave and lurk. they havent converted my favorite classes yet, which left me kind of edgy. sorry. i cannot wait for sorcerer to come out.
had me going on the first one though LOL, its really hardly fair to compare the two editions, in all honestly they are completely different games with similarities all rooted in the same background.
particularly on some points where its almost like comparing world of darkness to D&D, its very hard to ignore some of the assumptions you have about one game when going to the next, more so when they share a similar name.
i too am impatiently awaiting some classes (druid barbarian, monk), and more feats (a lot of my builds use a lot of the same feats).
i would still happily play a caster of some sort in a 3.5 game, id even be willing to self nerf, but i dont think i can GM again, a lot of that is based around the fact that i spent a whole lot of time and never felt appreciated by many of my players, a couple particularly were very take take take... anyway i ramble.
Minotuars= tauren
I...What?
The Hype about tieflings and dragonborn
As opposed to races that have been in everything (seriously, there are elves and dwarves in Mulan Rouge, you just need to look for em :D).
the fact i get yelled at for making races with penalties, 8 square speed or rapier proficiency.
not bieng able to use penalties to buy off excessive bonuses
4th edition is the twinks fantasy
So why don't you like it?
no multiclassing (WoW you can't multiclass)
And you also can't multiclass in... Well, every RPG ever, for one. Although this point really serves to point out that D&D has just become a copy of super metroid :D.
I...What?
As opposed to races that have been in everything (seriously, there are elves and dwarves in Mulan Rouge, you just need to look for em :D).
So why don't you like it?
And you also can't multiclass in... Well, every RPG ever, for one. Although this point really serves to point out that D&D has just become a copy of super metroid :D.
they nerfed everything.
3.5 you could try 50 or more concepts you couldn't do in 4.0 with just the 3.5phb, mm, dmg and unearthed arcana.
those 4 books could give any desirable concept.
in 3.5 i liked the multiclass synergy that they cut out.
in 3.5 with those 4 books
you had more than 150 char options with gestalt alone, a fair amount of races, without gestalt you still had 50 class options before multiclassing
with multclass or gestalt or anthing similar, before race you had 3,000 options, (race= 15000 options) acutally the concepts didn't end
4th edition players handbook and monster manual
16 options from class alone (2 builds for 8 classes)
about 30 races
420 options
you need to buy a bunch of books to build more concepts
the more options the better.
sorry, but they cut out almost every option in 3.5. scary.
those 4 books could give any desirable concept.
Sakuya Izayoi.
in 3.5 i liked the multiclass synergy that they cut out.
They have multiclass feats in 4th ed.
16 options from class alone (2 builds for 8 classes)
Plus 3 pacts for the warlock, and a veritable bevy of power selection.
the more options the better.
Agreed for the most part, but my smartasssery dictates that I point out that "I'm buying you a kitten", while presenting fewer options than "Choose 1; I eviscerate you or I bloodlet you", is in fact the better scenario.
Actualy, RPJ, in Guild Wars you can get a second proffession, which is basicly multiclassing. Although, to be fair, you can change the secondary proffession very easily.
Well yes, I was generalizing.
Before I start, understand I'm planning on starting a 4th ed campaign soon, and I've played it before, and it's fun. I've also been playing since 2nd ed, so keep all that in mind.
4th ed seems like a great game, but there are several things I don't like about it. The lack of ANY non-combat skills seems counter-productive to non-combat role-playing, and I was rather fond of the old spell system. All spells are meant to do things only in combat, and outside of combat they are neigh useless. However, my biggest problem with the system is the fact that everything is driven by mechanics, rather than strictly making sense.
In short, 4th ed looks like a GREAT minis game to me. And if you like your role-playing experience to be running around dungeons killing endless hordes of goblins, GREAT. This is a game tailor made to you. But, I've played in (very successful) campaigns that relied much more on story than combat, with entire sessions where we didn't fight. Some of you may think that's the worst idea in the world. For us, it was fun, and 4th ed isn't a step in the right direction for us players.
So, while I don't HATE 4th ed, and it is fun to play in, I kinda see it as less of a role-playing game, and more like heroclix or Warhammer. Actually, y'know what it REALLY reminds me of? Descent. Nothing wrong with the game, it's fun as all get out. It's just NOT the role-playing experience I prefer. I'm giving it a try, but I can quite easily see myself sticking with 3.5 or even 3rd ed.
Well, those are my thoughs, plain and simple for all to read. Please note that there is no malace in these words and they are, I feel, fairly well thought out. So, please keep that in mind as you read this.
So, while I don't HATE 4th ed, and it is fun to play in, I kinda see it as less of a role-playing game, and more like heroclix or Warhammer.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about 4th edition. As my gaming group has ended our 3.5 campaign and I'm taking the reigns of the DM for the 4th edition campaign we're about to start, I can't summon up more than mediocre enthusiasm for the game.
4th edition is the twinks fantasy
And to "support" that argument I see this...
Wands of spell spamming don't exist nor does the use magic device skill...
not bieng able to use penalties to buy off excessive bonuses...
So who is the twink? Who has the power-gamer mentality? In a later post you talk about "synergy" when multiclassing. Given the rest of this, I have a feeling that "synergy" means "earth-shattering might of these 3 class features on three different PrCs that I can meet by taking skills and feats that I would be inclined to take because they are good skills and feats anyway"
And then there is this...
feats are supposed to be special and grant huge benefits
Because.... Uhmmm... Because why, exactly? And when exactly did anyone consider skill focus: cobbler to be granting a "huge bonus"?
You hate 4E? Fine. Whatever. But with my admittedly biased eye, I would have a hard time giving you any points in the 3.X vs. 4E debate. You could have left it at "I hate 4E because!" and done about as well.
If they are feeding BS crap like "it's too much like an MMO" without even trying to play it for a few sessions....I'm not sure you want to be playing with people like that. They are entitled to prefer to play 3.5, just like somebody is entitled to prefer Monopoly over Clue. But if you have one or two people who want to play a game of Clue one night, is it a reasonable reaction to start on a tirade about Clue sucking and Monopoly being better? Especially if you've never actually even played a game of Clue? No.
Sakuya Izayoi.
I would love to see Sakuya as a D&D character.
The only real reason to not even *TRY* 4e that I can think of is the financial one. But books can be shared and everybody is learning and the play will be slower anyway for that first module you run.
If they are feeding BS crap like "it's too much like an MMO" without even trying to play it for a few sessions....I'm not sure you want to be playing with people like that. They are entitled to prefer to play 3.5, just like somebody is entitled to prefer Monopoly over Clue. But if you have one or two people who want to play a game of Clue one night, is it a reasonable reaction to start on a tirade about Clue sucking and Monopoly being better? Especially if you've never actually even played a game of Clue? No.
My Dog "marks" your Colonel Mustard!
My Dog "marks" your Colonel Mustard!
Ew, you're cleaning that up.
Can anyone out there please give me a simple, rational answer to one, simple question?
What is it you gain from tearing down someone else's enjoyment in something?
That's all I want to know.
...4th ed seems like a great game, but there are several things I don't like about it. ...
This pretty much sums up how I feel about 4th edition. As my gaming group has ended our 3.5 campaign and I'm taking the reigns of the DM for the 4th edition campaign we're about to start, I can't summon up more than mediocre enthusiasm for the game.
You can do it Rhen! I was in the same boat as you guys, before I started work on my own 4e campaign. In fact, all but one of my group took an immediate dislike to 4e after reading the books (and I was very skeptical myself).
But... I read pretty much every post on the subject ever made on these forums (pros and cons) and decided to take 4e as a kind of challenge: I've been playing D&D since 1980, d***-it! I'm not going to let this version get the better of me!
And the results have been pretty good! There are still bits and pieces that aren't exactly to our taste, but no more than there have been in every other edition. The biggest issue is just missing content (i.e., time & space limitations in the first books) and we're already starting to see that be addressed (such as via the Dragon issues and the upcoming Adventurers Vault).
After only the 2nd session, my player with the strongest aversion to 4e said "you know, you're actually making this feel like a real game system." (which I thought was a pretty amusing comment.)
Can anyone out there please give me a simple, rational answer to one, simple question?
What is it you gain from tearing down someone else's enjoyment in something?
That's all I want to know.
This is the internets, where opinions can be wrong and no one has any sense or sensability except the person who posts. Especially not YOU!
4E is more of a board game.
what do wands of spell spamming provide?
Out of battle healing
i used them to keep the party alive
Do you remember when it was good to multiclass?
no i do not triple dip prestige classes, i restrict myself to no more than 4 or 5 classes in one character, (ususally less than 4) ( more base than prestige) (always at least a way to use wands) so in fact i gimped myself. i even went slightly less optimal.
however i did like having +25 to each saving throw (weakest being +16) pre epic and 13-19 BAB)
so no i am not i powergamer, in fact i suck at it.
however in both, i hated magic item dependancy which will never go away. i personally liked ability enhancers though.
What is it you gain from tearing down someone else's enjoyment in something?
That's all I want to know.
Some people play tennis. I erode the human soul.
:D
Some people play tennis. I erode the human soul.
:D
I erode the human mind, slowly causing insanity.
Obviously, if 4th edition were only suited for hack and slash game play then these posts would not exist. Try it for yourselves! Get a 4e game together with a decent DM who can put together a good story and you'll find that *gasp* there's nothing in 4th edition stopping you from roleplaying.
Please forgive me for being facetious-but I'm sick of this fallacy being spread around when there are many people out there who are playing games that are full of well-developed characters and great stories.
sorry
but to me, when i first read 4e phb, everything sounded like an mmorpg.
i still play 3.5
I would suggest playing 4e rather than reading about it. I have to admit I had SERIOUS reservations about 4e before I had an opportunity to play it, and almost every issue I had turned out to not be the problem I imagined.
everybody houserules 4th edition
3.5 needed less houserules than 4e
Would you care to expand on this? I think 4e lends itself to a FAR more playable game mechanic and FAR less need for houserules. (With the exception of lack of source material, which is coming pretty fast in the next several months)
things i dislike about 4e
they crippled the rogues primary features (trapfinding and sneak attack)
This is a perfect example of what you 'read' in the rules, but notice is not true at all when 'playing' the game. The powers play very differently in combat than they read on the page.
in fact, they totally erased skill monkeys
Much of the game mechanics are far more mathematically sound. The skill mechanics are a perfect example of this. No more items of +5 to x skill. No need for them. No more need to min/max various skills.
wizards now have to be the AoE damage dealers
Well, this isn't strictly speaking true, but the wizards role in 4e is still my biggest concern. Yes, wizards needed to have their combat power downsized. Yes, this had the unfortunate result of affecting their 'flavor' but I believe the upcoming Arcane book will address many, if not all, of these concerns.
Fighters have to be tanks now
Absolutely not. I don't know what else to say to this, but play the game. Just play an encounter or two. You will see immediately this isn't the case.
Wands of spell spamming don't exist nor does the use magic device skill
(i wish there were still wands of cure light wounds in the game, even if mechanically twisted)
Really? You really want to have a furious combat, then afterwards just "'bing' that combat cost us 27 charges. Next."??
Removing the dependance on items places a dependance in the players. The players get to be heroic now, not their items.
the fact most of my favorite classes cannot be properly converted
(sorcerer, arcane trickster, daggerspell mage, duskblade, beguiler, Druid (with pet) and various triple classed characters)
Yet.
As for triple classed, I think the direction the devs are taking is (although tough to swallow) positive for the game experience. The idea that you'd start as a fighter then several levels not really be a fighter anymore but some amalgamation of prestige and multi classes was watering down the core feeling of the class. In 4e your 'core' class remains the same and the customization you place into him doesn't affect that. I feel confident that with time there will be more and more options for customizing your character, but the idea that your main class remains is key.
the value of a feat is a lot less now
(feats are supposed to be special and grant huge benefits)
This is again a perfect example of reading vs playing. Under the new system the mathematics is VERY tight. So much so that encounters for appropriate levels are actually balanced challenges and shifts of one or two points can significantly change the outcome. So a feat that adds +1 to something is effectively shifting the balance considerably. This becomes very noticable when the game is played through a handful of combat or skill encounters.
I assure you I was on your side on many of these issues not so long ago. But once I had the chance to play the game a bit it became very apparent that this system is FAR more balanced, eloquent, and mathematically sound than any to come before---without sacrificing the 'role playing' aspect of the game.
the fact i get yelled at for making races with penalties, 8 square speed or rapier proficiency.
not bieng able to use penalties to buy off excessive bonuses
The problem with tweaking penalties/bonuses is that the 4e math is very well done. Even one point here or there can really make an impact, so these decisions need to be weighed carefully. I'm not a fan of yelling at anyone, but modifications to speed and other game mechanics need to be given careful consideration. This doesn't mean they can't be done, it just means that a full understanding of their ramifications needs to be had before allowing for them.
things i like with 4e
less work on the dm
AND the player. The games I've been in have run far more smoothly, and keep combat dynamic yet paced quickly so as to not hog the entire game play time.
I think most of your concerns would actually be alleviated by playing the game a bit. I still have some concerns about the role of wizards, about the idea of "someone got a miniture game in my rpg" and a few other things, but overall I think a far more playable, and fun game has been created.
Oh and as for the more tactical/mini driven combats...in a way it's just a return to the D&D roots, and if it was good enough for Gygax....
Point of order, every MMORPG in existance has more options than 4E.
4E is more of a board game.
Define options please.
A mmorpg has physical and game boundaries. You can walk to the edge of the map and stand there with no where else to go.
You can run out of bag space. You can run out of character space. EVERYthing about an mmorpg is finite. Finite NPCs (except infinite respawns of the same NPC) Finite space, finite players etc.
Please PLAY the game. I think you'll see what you're stating just isn't true.
Please also understand, we have 1 player source book currently. More are coming. But the existing material has tons of options, and those options are really only bounded by the imagination of you the player, your companions and your DM.
You can do it Rhen! I was in the same boat as you guys, before I started work on my own 4e campaign. In fact, all but one of my group took an immediate dislike to 4e after reading the books (and I was very skeptical myself).
But... I read pretty much every post on the subject ever made on these forums (pros and cons) and decided to take 4e as a kind of challenge: I've been playing D&D since 1980, d***-it! I'm not going to let this version get the better of me!
And the results have been pretty good! There are still bits and pieces that aren't exactly to our taste, but no more than there have been in every other edition. The biggest issue is just missing content (i.e., time & space limitations in the first books) and we're already starting to see that be addressed (such as via the Dragon issues and the upcoming Adventurers Vault).
After only the 2nd session, my player with the strongest aversion to 4e said "you know, you're actually making this feel like a real game system." (which I thought was a pretty amusing comment.)
Perfectly stated. I HATED 4e before I got a chance to play it. And my friends who live in another city and were running it thought I was crazy. Then I got a chance to play it and now I understand.
The played game is significantly more enjoyable than it appears to even the least casual reader. Now I love it.
I think that's the problem right there. WotC is relying on people wanting to play the game before judging.
And if I were working in marketing for WotC I'd be concerned about theads about this.
But if I were in design/development...I'd have to say my concerns would be considerably less. They made a very playable, enjoyable, and fair game. One that gets back to relying on sound mathematics and streamlined combat to free up storytelling and gameplay.
The reality is the game is VERY new. By this time next year my guess is a lot more people will have had an opportunity to try it out, more source material will become available, and many many of these concerns will have been removed from the table of discussion.
Clerics, wizards, druids, and sorcerers do not make the game unfun for me or my group. Our dedicated warriors have their spotlight time. They are just as happy when the spellcasters get the kill. (Even if he isn't a True Wizard - private joke to a certain someone.
)Do not try to convince me to like 4E.
Sweet Christmas...
I don't feel that these are what D&D rules are all about. It was cool to have these daily and encounter power abilities when I played the Warlord in the Open but when you get magic items they only have a power you can use and then you can only use 1 magic item at a time per encounter or per day I can't remember which, but why even have these items if you can't use them. Even when you use a healing potion it uses one of those surges. What?! It is a magic item not a healing surge and at only 10 points of healing why use them when your actual surge is for mch more. These rules seem to be geared for tournament level play and not campaign level play. The wizards can only use their spells as one shot encounter powers or daily powers and then when they use all of them the become quite useless. They aren't fighters they cast spells, use magic and in any type of drawn out fight they have nothing.
These rules do not make the game smoother they still create the herky jerky of clerical upkeep. Instead of resting for spells and re-picking spells everyone now has to erase all of the powers they used to start all over again for the next encounters after resting. I know the designers were trying to eliminate players from powering up, whaling on one encounter and resting only to do it again but I don't think this solves the problem.
And I feel that in the midst of the newly released 3.5e rules while everyone is sinking a ton of cash into 3.5e products they are hard at work working on 4e which I feel is deceitful and irresponsible when you see people buying up everything in sight for 3.5e and then not even 3 years later all of that material is esentially junk; especially the minis which most people invest heavily in. So now they have to go back through almost 14 series of nminis and update stat cards to stave off open mutiny in the gamer world. At this rate Wizards will work themselves out of a job.
As for the "stealth" tactics mentioned: they disrupt whatever you interrupted, annoy people b/c of that, annoy people b/c you're obviously trying to slip in 4e instead of bringing it up plainly (especially - not except - after you failed to convince them plainly), and they often convince someone to disagree with you (or disagree more) simply for these reasons. Even the first time you do it.
DMing a 4e game when there's no other game or in addition to another game was a nice suggestion. Any game is better than no game. Any idea that considers what would be beneficial to the group as a whole is likewise good.
In the end you can only ask and try. Not force or do. The individuals in your group will make decisions and you can discuss them with open reason (not thinly veiled tactics), but in the end you'll have to live with whatever people choose.
4e is easy to use and more "gamey", 3e is complicated and more in depth. I prefer depth but I also play computer games and board games (big surprise I know :rolleyes
. It's really a matter of preference, so you just gotta live with that.You can run out of bag space. You can run out of character space. EVERYthing about an mmorpg is finite. Finite NPCs (except infinite respawns of the same NPC) Finite space, finite players etc.
So basically, your argument is that I can fit castles into my backpack, wear 315 suits of armor if I feel like it, you can kill as many people as you want and they'll be more, I can go out in space and start exploring out there, and when I go to a 4e game, there will be infinite players at the table? (I don't think more than four or five people will fit around my table.)
Yeah.
There are good arguments for 4E. You didn't make any of them, and ended up saying something very silly instead.
Like I said, I don't hate 4E. I just don't like the direction they've taken the game. Too nerfy for my tastes. (Played a 4E game at the local gaming store for a few sessions. Didn't appeal to me.)
in an MMO, though space is finite, you can fit things in a bag that you shouldn't, and you have banks to stash your excess loot. need more space, buy up another bank storage bin, you can have infinite space as long as you have currency, and whatever you don't want, you can rip off newbies with. on WoW, newbies pay a couple gold pieces for 10 bolts of linen cloth. due to all the botters buying up the cheap stuff, then selling for huge prices, then buying the good stuff, "DON'T LET THE F****** BOTTERS WIN!!!!!!!"
This folks, is what happens when you go into a MMORPG and are forced to grind (IE farm farm and farm) for even the cheapest, most insignifigant loot.
Another game session is coming up this sunday so I'll call up the DM and see if she's running 4E again.... If so, I'll be statting up that kobold rouge :D
ONE thing I realy like about 4E is that kobold are no longer cannon fodder. Depending on how you run them, they can BE the cannons.