Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
One thing I hate about the Sorcerer
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9303205" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Is it simplistic? It reflects precisely what I've seen--and argued against--for years and years and years.</p><p></p><p>If we are to accept this argument, then, am I permitted to expect others to avoid simplistic, inaccurate glosses about 4e? Like the one we literally just got in this very thread, where someone said that every Striker attack was copy-pasted from every other, even though the proof that that isn't true is <em>trivially easy</em> to provide?</p><p></p><p></p><p>The vast majority of people I have spoken to who so thoroughly hated 4e did so on the basis of blatant misrepresentations, self-admitted total ignorance, or intentional omissions. These folks were quite easily able to spread a great deal of falsehoods, and got a lot of people very riled up over nothing, or over extremely little. (Consider, for example, the three different users on another forum who point-blank claimed that it was <em>impossible</em> to roleplay while playing 4e--not that it was hard <em>for them</em>, for whatever reason, but that it was impossible for <em>anyone</em> to roleplay while doing it. Hell, the [in]famous Justin Alexander literally made that exact claim in his eternally-cited, rarely-read "dissociated mechanics" posts, an argument which he then proceeded to <em>promptly abandon</em> the moment it applied to a system he liked.)</p><p></p><p>Now, does this mean 4e was some sort of flawless diamond? <em>Absolutely the hell not</em>. Its presentation was very poor. Several early adventures were <em>absolute dog feces</em>. Skill Challenges were almost never actually used well in official publications, and were almost never explained well. Certain classes came out half-baked and required fixes or extra love (Paladin, Warlock, and Wizard, for example.) Some of the rules for certain elements, like stealth, were not well-made and thus got adjusted later. The designers made some decisions that, in the long term, proved unwise (e.g. I am completely convinced that it was 100% intentional that the game got very slightly more difficult at higher levels, forcing players to demonstrate better teamwork and cooperation in order to "keep up" with the power curve--but people complained about that, and then complained about the fix, and all the while complained that the whole thing was a treadmill, meaning it was <em>impossible</em> for WotC to make a correct move.) The monsters erred too much on the side of caution/"fat sack of HP with only moderate damage" when they should have leaned toward more danger. Class skills were not well-handled and carried forward certain unwise choices from 3e (e.g. giving Fighters fewer skills than other classes for literally no other reason than "Fighters got few skill points in 3e.") Somewhere around half of all feats and powers just...really didn't need to exist, as they were just not particularly worthwhile.</p><p></p><p>I could go on: the point is, I'm quite well aware that 4e has flaws, that it isn't perfect, that there are reasons to be critical of it, to demand better, etc. But the vast majority of criticisms <em>actually</em> levied on 4e had literally nothing to do with the game at all--and everything to do with a committed, vocal minority actively crusading to bring it down by whatever means necessary.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9303205, member: 6790260"] Is it simplistic? It reflects precisely what I've seen--and argued against--for years and years and years. If we are to accept this argument, then, am I permitted to expect others to avoid simplistic, inaccurate glosses about 4e? Like the one we literally just got in this very thread, where someone said that every Striker attack was copy-pasted from every other, even though the proof that that isn't true is [I]trivially easy[/I] to provide? The vast majority of people I have spoken to who so thoroughly hated 4e did so on the basis of blatant misrepresentations, self-admitted total ignorance, or intentional omissions. These folks were quite easily able to spread a great deal of falsehoods, and got a lot of people very riled up over nothing, or over extremely little. (Consider, for example, the three different users on another forum who point-blank claimed that it was [I]impossible[/I] to roleplay while playing 4e--not that it was hard [I]for them[/I], for whatever reason, but that it was impossible for [I]anyone[/I] to roleplay while doing it. Hell, the [in]famous Justin Alexander literally made that exact claim in his eternally-cited, rarely-read "dissociated mechanics" posts, an argument which he then proceeded to [I]promptly abandon[/I] the moment it applied to a system he liked.) Now, does this mean 4e was some sort of flawless diamond? [I]Absolutely the hell not[/I]. Its presentation was very poor. Several early adventures were [I]absolute dog feces[/I]. Skill Challenges were almost never actually used well in official publications, and were almost never explained well. Certain classes came out half-baked and required fixes or extra love (Paladin, Warlock, and Wizard, for example.) Some of the rules for certain elements, like stealth, were not well-made and thus got adjusted later. The designers made some decisions that, in the long term, proved unwise (e.g. I am completely convinced that it was 100% intentional that the game got very slightly more difficult at higher levels, forcing players to demonstrate better teamwork and cooperation in order to "keep up" with the power curve--but people complained about that, and then complained about the fix, and all the while complained that the whole thing was a treadmill, meaning it was [I]impossible[/I] for WotC to make a correct move.) The monsters erred too much on the side of caution/"fat sack of HP with only moderate damage" when they should have leaned toward more danger. Class skills were not well-handled and carried forward certain unwise choices from 3e (e.g. giving Fighters fewer skills than other classes for literally no other reason than "Fighters got few skill points in 3e.") Somewhere around half of all feats and powers just...really didn't need to exist, as they were just not particularly worthwhile. I could go on: the point is, I'm quite well aware that 4e has flaws, that it isn't perfect, that there are reasons to be critical of it, to demand better, etc. But the vast majority of criticisms [I]actually[/I] levied on 4e had literally nothing to do with the game at all--and everything to do with a committed, vocal minority actively crusading to bring it down by whatever means necessary. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
One thing I hate about the Sorcerer
Top