Arguments in favor of 4th Edition

[crazysamaritan]

Original Post:
Psychic Robot is a poster on the Wizards of the Coast website. Something he's occasionally done is ask for posters who like 4e to come to these forums and "defend" 4e. Pointless stuff aside, I happen to like arguing. I have some free time to spend over here listening to arguments, and P_R claims that this board would like to see some more people arguing in favor of the system, rather than the detriment.

On the WotC's website I refer to myself in my Sig as a TSRchivist. Which means I have enjoyed every edition of D&D which I have played (currently 2nd, 3rd, and 4th). It also means that I respond to falsehoods about 2e the same as I respond to falsehoods of 4e. But for these forums, just call me "The 4e Fanboi".

So, post why 4e is worse than 3e, or 2e, or any other edition of D&D. I'll try to refute/concede each argument.

---

Arguments

1. Skill Challenges - Claim: The skill challenge system is a bad system.

My opinion is that the system works fine. I concede that there is no good argument in favor of Skill Challenges.

(Tally: 0- for, 1- against)

[Leress]

Welcome. I would like to see these arguments for 4e.

[Maxus]

Well, okay.

4e is sterile compared to the huge weirdness possible with 3.x rules. I invite you to look into what Frank and Keith have done, such as The Wish and The Word, and Balor Mining, and so on. Those power loops were bad for the game, but they were FUN to read about.

While I understand the reasons for wanting people to get out and get treasure honestly (by killing monsters and taking their stuff), the economy is really...weird. You get 20% of its value selling it at Ye Magic Item Shoppe and they're allowed to sell it what it's worth plus another 20-40% when they sell it to an adventure? Could you get fair value by selling it to another adventurer?

Other things...the fights are padded sumo. Like, Disintegrate does so little damage compared to monster hit points it should be called, "Mild Skin Rash".

Is that a starting point?

[koz]

Welcome. I would like to see these arguments for 4e.

And I would like very much to dismantle them, or help to do so.

But in more seriousness, welcome to TGD, and I hope you enjoy your stay here.

[crazysamaritan]

Is that a starting point?

Sure.

4e is sterile compared to the huge weirdness possible with 3.x rules. I invite you to look into what Frank and Keith have done, such as The Wish and The Word, and Balor Mining, and so on. Those power loops were bad for the game, but they were FUN to read about.

Can I summarize this as "4e is so balanced it's sterile"?

While I understand the reasons for wanting people to get out and get treasure honestly (by killing monsters and taking their stuff), the economy is really...weird. You get 20% of its value selling it at Ye Magic Item Shoppe and they're allowed to sell it what it's worth plus another 20-40% when they sell it to an adventure? Could you get fair value by selling it to another adventurer?

The issue here is that 4e doesn't provide a realistic economic system?
Then I'm sorry; D&D has NEVER provided a realistic economic system. In 3rd, you can cut a ten foot pole in half, and sell two ten foot poles for a profit.

Other things...the fights are padded sumo. Like, Disintegrate does so little damage compared to monster hit points it should be called, "Mild Skin Rash".

First, let me ask how much damage a Gun does. A gunshot wound can kill you when it hits. It can also kill you in one minute. It can also kill you in a day if you don't do some first aid, or an hour, even if you do. How do you represent a single hit that kills you later, using a hit point system?

Or did you mean "Hit points are unrealistic"?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Can I summarize this as "4e is so balanced it's sterile"?

No, please don't. 4E is not balanced. It's more balanced than 3rd Edition but its neutering of player power and interaction only resulted in a modest improvement.

The issue here is that 4e doesn't provide a realistic economic system?
Then I'm sorry; D&D has NEVER provided a realistic economic system. In 3rd, you can cut a ten foot pole in half, and sell two ten foot poles for a profit.

The economic system in 1st and 2nd Edition, where you couldn't strip mine the gaming world for more than a perfunctory amount of power, was much more sane. When you can't deconstruct the Ice Queen's palace Sim-City style for magic weapons then you'll find that you don't much care about the economy.

4E is only an 'improvement' on the 3E economy in that players are completely forbidden to interact or screw with it in any way. Unfortunately, the extent that they did so was extremely heavy-handed and completely kills immersion. I would rather have the ladder/ten foot pole trick personally.

The problem of spending a quadratic amount of money for a linear improvement remains and 4E didn't even make a single fucking attempt to fix it. They just went Diablo-style and made it so that you can only get money at pre-defined treasure points and that you can't attack merchants. I'm sorry, but it was fucking stupid and 3rd Edition and it reaches the level of fucking insulting in 4th.

[crazysamaritan]

Can I summarize this as "4e is so balanced it's sterile"?

No, please don't. 4E is not balanced. It's more balanced than 3rd Edition but its neutering of player power and interaction only resulted in a modest improvement.

Okay, what about, "4e has reduced same-level power variables"?

4E is only an 'improvement' on the 3E economy in that players are completely forbidden to interact or screw with it in any way.

That's not true; players are not forbidden from interacting with it. The rules don't provide for an interaction with the economy other than buying and selling individual items. Anything more than that gets players into DM territory. Such as setting up a shop, or owning a tavern. I am not familiar with the edition of D&D which provided rules for owning a tavern in the core three books.

[Lago PARANOIA]

That's not true; players are not forbidden from interacting with it. The rules don't provide for an interaction with the economy other than buying and selling individual items. Anything more than that gets players into DM territory.

That's the same thing as being forbidden to act with the economy. Players have no way of acquiring their own money without the DM explicitly putting it in the game and have nothing to do with it other than buy a small amount of cheap bullshit, pay for overpriced rituals, and creating magic items. That's really, really insulting.

Saying that every DM has to individually create something for their game with no guidelines is the same thing as not having it. Saying that the DM could invent rules for hiring and running staff is NOT the same thing as actually having rules for hiring and running staff.

Such as setting up a shop, or owning a tavern. I am not familiar with the edition of D&D which provided rules for owning a tavern in the core three books.

It's really not particularly hard. There were rules for about how many people you would expect in your watering hole, there were rules about hiring staff in the DMG, there were rules for how you could get your building in the first place.

The rules weren't exactly the best. For example, the Profession/Bartender check didn't account for city size or reputation even though Perform strangely did. But was it a damn sight better than any other edition? Oh hell yes.

[Elennsar]

Its not exactly the same thing to say "We don't have rules for." and "we're forbidding there from being." either.

There aren't rules for how often you need to urinate, I don't think D&D characters have bladders of endless capacity.

More relevantly: This sucks. And blows.

MARKED: A particular creature has marked you. You can only be marked by 1 creature at a time. If another creature marks you, you lose the old mark and gain the new one. If you attack a creature other than the one marking you, you suffer a -2 penalty on your attack rolls.

[Psychic Robot]

Classic 4etard fallacy: "Just houserule it!" I'll tell you what--it's a lot easier to houserule a broken system than it is to make one up on the spot.

[crazysamaritan]

Such as setting up a shop, or owning a tavern. I am not familiar with the edition of D&D which provided rules for owning a tavern in the core three books.

It's really not particularly hard. There were rules for about how many people you would expect in your watering hole, there were rules about hiring staff in the DMG, there were rules for how you could get your building in the first place.

Except you're lying now.

What page number tells me the number of people I can expect at my watering hole?
Provide me with book and page numbers for employing waitresses, bartenders, maids, and entertainers.

In second edition, Fighters got a castle, once they were of an appropriate level. But it was not a tavern, unless the player made it into one. By the rules, it was a stronghold.

---

Are you aware that XP is a measure of how powerful a character is?
That all characters who have earned [x] XP are supposed to have roughly the same power level?
If character 'A' has twice as much XP as character 'B', then character 'A' has more power than character 'B' does.

it's a lot easier to houserule a broken system than it is to make one up on the spot.

It's also easier to break a balanced system by house-ruling than to house-rule a broken system into balance. This is also not a point against 4e.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Its not exactly the same thing to say "We don't have rules for." and "we're forbidding there from being." either.

In any tabletop game, no matter how well it's constructed, there's the implicit rule of being allowed to do anything that doesn't wreck gameplay or piss off the other people at the table. It's not the same thing as not being allowed to wear black pants because there aren't any rules for it.

Interacting with the economy in any way in 4E that's not already described wrecks gameplay in a way the game designers didn't want. It's plainly obvious that the game designers did not want you to interact with the economy in anything but a perfunctory way and in fact took steps to prevent people from getting off the rails.

So it's forbidden.

[Elennsar]

That I will not dispute. But simply not having rules for the likelyhood of getting pregnant when having sex is not the same thing as having children being forbidden.

D&D in general does not handle the whole "economy and the player characters" at all well - or at least neither fourth OR third edition do.

Point against D&D in general.

[Psychic Robot]

It's also easier to break a balanced system by house-ruling than to house-rule a broken system into balance. This is also not a point against 4e.

It is when 4e is missing huge chunks of a system in the first PHB.

[crazysamaritan]

In any tabletop game, no matter how well it's constructed, there's the implicit rule of being allowed to do anything that doesn't wreck gameplay or piss off the other people at the table.

I play D&D to (paraphrase) take on the role of a Legendary hero—a skilled fighter, a courageous cleric, a deadly rogue, or a spell-hurling wizard. With some willing friends and a little imagination, I strike out on daring missions and epic quests, testing myself against an array of daunting challenges and bloodthirsty monsters.

I did not come to argue with customers about the quality of food that I serve. Or decide sexual harassment issues when one guy gets too drunk, and rowdy with my waitresses. Or go over profit/expense paperwork. Or any number of other business-related issues.


So, I don't need rules for that.

[crazysamaritan]

4e is missing huge chunks of a system in the first PHB.

That's an opinion, not a fact. A system that lacks an aspect that you enjoy does not inherently make the system flawed.

Monopoly has no rules for combat. I like combat. Therefore, Monopoly is missing huge chunks of a system. This does not make Monopoly flawed.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Except you're lying now.

Wow. You just pissed me off. I haven't actually been pissed off at a poster for awhile, so congratulations or something.

What page number tells me the number of people I can expect at my watering hole?
Provide me with book and page numbers for employing waitresses, bartenders, maids, and entertainers.

Since you're willing to call people a liar because you didn't read the rules, I'll point it out to you in the rulebook.

DMG: Page 136-138. It gives you demographics. It gives you a formula for generating a community, a rough idea of the occupations for your demographics, and even gives a blurb about how much money a laborer earns. Cross-checking with 108 of the PHB gives prices for a selection of booze. Since common laborers only earn one silver piece a day, we can surmise that most people only get about two mugs of ale every week or so. So on.

DMG: Page 105. Hey, look right here, there's the pay chart for hirelings. Maids and cooks earn 1 silver piece a day.

DMG: Page 101: A simple house is a one-to-three room house and is made of wood and has a thatched roof. They cost 1000 gold pieces.

I don't have my 3.5E book on me, but here's a little something from the d20 SRD:

Check
You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems.

So if your bar is open 7 days a week and you have a staff of one cook and three maids, it costs about 3 gold pieces a week to keep them paid. Let's also say that, judging from the chart on page 96 of the 3.0E player's handbook, it takes about 4 gold pieces a week to keep your bar nice and serviced.

The average profession check of a 2nd level expert with profession/bartender and a 16 wisdom is 16, or that he makes about an 8 gold piece a week profit. So by giving himself a comfortable lifestyle of 2 silver pieces a month, he'll pay off his bar in fucking never.

Obviously, the numbers don't work. But they at least made an attempt to make the economy make sense.

So put away that liar label. I don't appreciate it.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I play D&D to (paraphrase) take on the role of a Legendary hero—a skilled fighter, a courageous cleric, a deadly rogue, or a spell-hurling wizard. With some willing friends and a little imagination, I strike out on daring missions and epic quests, testing myself against an array of daunting challenges and bloodthirsty monsters.

4E failed miserably in this regard, too, by both reducing the special effects of high level characters and also increasing the number of levels to be had in the first place.

High level 4E combat or adventuring doesn't feel any different from low level combat or adventuring. The numbers have been shifted around a bit but the strategies are fundamentally the same. Now 3E fucked up by letting some characters use a wild array of strategies while forcing other classes (sword-based people) to stick to the same strategy, but the solution to Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards is not Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards. Not in a supposedly epic 'heroic fantasy' game.

[Psychic Robot]

That's an opinion, not a fact. A system that lacks an aspect that you enjoy does not inherently make the system flawed.

Monopoly has no rules for combat. I like combat. Therefore, Monopoly is missing huge chunks of a system. This does not make Monopoly flawed.

Enchanters, necromancers, and summoners are all classic fantasy tropes that appear in 3e. Animal companions and familiars are classic fantasy tropes that appear in 3e. 4e doesn't have these things. Therefore, it is missing huge chunks of a system.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I did not come to argue with customers about the quality of food that I serve. Or decide sexual harassment issues when one guy gets too drunk, and rowdy with my waitresses. Or go over profit/expense paperwork. Or any number of other business-related issues.

Any edition of D&D would be remiss in focusing on that portion of the game. I'm not saying that 3rd Edition was better than 4th Edition because the rules for running Lefty's Bar and Grill were better, but because they had rules for running Lefty's Bar and Grill.

Here's a list of other incredibly common shit 3E had rules for that 4E did not:

- Running a guild.
- Recruiting and controlling an army.
- Sailing a ship across stormy waters.
- Crafting a sword.
- Creating your own spells/powers.
- Hiring a team of scribes to help you research Demon King Roku's undead army.

Now, 3E doesn't cover everything and 4E isn't remiss in everything. But these are incredibly basic adventuring tropes and 4E decided to go dead silent on how players are supposed to do these things other than a perfunctory 'DM's call' sort of handwave. The fact that 3E did tell us how to do these things and 4E did not is completely stupid and smacks of either laziness or a willingness to scuttle immersion to help run their combat system--and neither are any good.

[RandomCasualty2]

Advantages of 4E:

• Creating NPCs and monster encounters is much faster and can be done on the fly.
• A lot of the really powerful abilities like flight or greater invisibility are either removed or reserved for epic level. It generally makes encounter design easier, because you're less worried about countering the PCs cheese and more dealing with just creating a fun battle.
• The classes are a bit more balanced out of the box. You don't have the massive power gap of 3E.(Of course 4E epic is still fucked to all hell).
• It's easier for beginner DMs because you have less things to worry about, because 4E pretty much makes noncombat magic very limited.

That's really about it.

I'm not saying that 3rd Edition was better than 4th Edition because the rules for running Lefty's Bar and Grill were better, but because they had rules for running Lefty's Bar and Grill.

Only most of that didn't even matter and was best off left to DM fiat.

I mean lets look at your list...

- Running a guild.
- Recruiting and controlling an army.
- Sailing a ship across stormy waters.
- Crafting a sword.
- Creating your own spells/powers.
- Hiring a team of scribes to help you research Demon King Roku's undead army.

Honestly, I don't think that any of those rules for 3E actually added anything to the game. Armies didn't work because the battles took forever and armies were too shitty to be practical. Businesses didn't work because it broke wealthy by level and the rules just sucked in general. Forming a guild should always just be a roleplaying matter, and be handled through roleplaying. If you want NPCs to help you out, then you have to make them a decent offer to do so. As far as businesses, I don't even like the idea in any game with wealth by level. If anything it should just be part of your backstory and not influence your actual wealth.

Crafting a sword wasn't worth putting points into and might as well just have been some flavor ability the DM gave you. You can make magic items in 4E, and that's really all that matters.

Creating your own spells in 3E wasn't even rules it was just "try to balance it by other spells of its level" and you could do the same thing in 4E anyway.

Sailing the ship and doing research is probably the only thing I really care about, and that can be handled with a 4E skill challenge.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Honestly, I don't think that any of those rules for 3E actually added anything to the game. Armies didn't work because the battles took forever and armies were too shitty to be practical. Businesses didn't work because it broke wealthy by level and the rules just sucked in general.

I still appreciated the attempt, even if the execution was off.

Being able to command armies and run your own business/criminal empire/estate is a legitimate part of the fantasy genre, so there should at least be lip service towards it. Should it be a big part? No. But they at least tried to make D&D something more than a silly combat simulator. It's a step backwards as far as game design philosophy goes and D&D is a poorer place for deciding to Oberoni Fallacy it.

[Crimson Lancer]

The problems with your arguments, Lago and P_R, is that the game is only worse than 3.5 in your opinions, and due to the reasons you've cited.

4E is only sterile to some players. I happen to think it's just as rich as 3.5, but aimed at a different demographic, is all.

Many people do not like the Economy or the HP problem; I'd say it's a decent starting point, and can be modified as your DM sees fit. Neither of these reasons would be some Red Herring that would immediately ruin the experience for you.

4E is incredibly well-Balanced, with the exception of quite a few singular items that were not well thought-out in any way. Those are called mistakes, and come from being human, but even better, can be fixed with very little Errata. What's Broken and what isn't is also very much opinion-based.

If 3.5 truly allowed the Players to completely ignore the DM for purposes of the Economy, I feel obligated to ask why the DM would be necessary to begin with? Aren't you just playing a GP-collecting Video Game at that point?

Your personal experiences have no basis in an argument on how good a System is from an objective view-point, Lago. Unless, of course, this entire argument is just a rant against a System that you, personally, do not like. In which case, why are we here at all?

P_R, as usual, your opinion of "better" is noted, but not really an argument per se, but simply your personal feelings on the current subject. Again, noted, and agreed with about things missing. Fortunately, that problem is easy to fix: release more material. Most of those things will be in Arcane Power.


I'll try to keep further responses shorter and more to the current point; I just didn't want to leave Samaritan alone to fight the Pack. [/i]

[RandomCasualty2]

I still appreciated the attempt, even if the execution was off.

Being able to command armies and run your own business/criminal empire/estate is a legitimate part of the fantasy genre, so there should at least be lip service towards it. Should it be a big part? No. But they at least tried to make D&D something more than a silly combat simulator. It's a step backwards as far as game design philosophy goes and D&D is a poorer place for deciding to Oberoni Fallacy it.

If the rule doesn't work, then it might as well not even exist, because it just adds bloat and can break the game. If you add rules for businesses and those rules let you totally break your characters power level. That's bad. And having those rules exist actually hurts your game.

At that point, I'd rather have it just be flavor text that you happen to have a thieves guild instead of actually worrying about how much money it makes.

Rules that break the game are bad, you are in fact better off without that rule. I'd rather the rules just be silent on an issue than present a rule and it fucks up the game.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

4E is only sterile to some players. I happen to think it's just as rich as 3.5, but aimed at a different demographic, is all.

I don't see how you can possibly argue that 4e is as rich as 3.x. I'll agree that it is aimed at a different demographic: one that doesn't care about having a rich, immersive roleplaying experience, doesn't care to look behind the curtain, and doesn't care if the game world makes sense.