<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why People Hate Fourth Edition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition</link>
	<description>A blog for all fans of Dungeons &#38; Dragons.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:00:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc</title>
		<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/comment-page-2#comment-136118</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 23:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://d20.jonnydigital.com/?p=303#comment-136118</guid>
		<description>Getting to this late but yeah, the way George killed SW with Eps 1-3 elicits very much the same emotions in me that 4e does!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Getting to this late but yeah, the way George killed SW with Eps 1-3 elicits very much the same emotions in me that 4e does!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oldgamergeek</title>
		<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/comment-page-2#comment-111352</link>
		<dc:creator>oldgamergeek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:12:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://d20.jonnydigital.com/?p=303#comment-111352</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t like 4e as a rule set, I don&#039;t like the way that the 4vengers hound me at the game store and conventions oh no he is not playing 4e quick 4vengers 4semble and yes this has been happening since the game came out.okay maybe not exactly like this but close enough. these people hit me with evangelistic zeal and there is no escape, no live and let live, nothing but You must play 4e and like it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t like 4e as a rule set, I don&#8217;t like the way that the 4vengers hound me at the game store and conventions oh no he is not playing 4e quick 4vengers 4semble and yes this has been happening since the game came out.okay maybe not exactly like this but close enough. these people hit me with evangelistic zeal and there is no escape, no live and let live, nothing but You must play 4e and like it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/comment-page-2#comment-110161</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://d20.jonnydigital.com/?p=303#comment-110161</guid>
		<description>4th edition DND is a horrible abortion, comprised of the most unappealing and loathsome elements of a tabletop game. As a long time player, who has read nearly every single issue of dragon magazine(and the seven issue Strategic review that came before),who owns an original copy of Men and Magic,and played 3.x extensively, I must say that Mr.Gary Gygax is rolling in his grave. And how?

1-The elimination of the Alignment system.

Although some would see this a straight-jacket, I disagree. It was a crucial element to roleplaying. From nine, we have five, leaving mesh and overlay, which confuses and irks many, including those in my gaming group. 

2-&quot;Powers&quot; and the elimination of Vancian Magic.

The implementation of powers in 4th edition is foolish and contrived. It marginalizes the distinct features of classes, and renders them all the same; just swap fighter with wizard, and your damage output will be the same! Spellcasters are now delegated to &quot;DPS&quot; machines, having to resort to rituals that an equivalent level 3.x spell caster could blow out of the water.

3-The elimination of traditional cosmologies, and gods.

Where is Limbo? Where is my Clock Work Nirvana? Gehnna? Hades? Nowhere to be found. 30+ years of development, eschewed in favor of a puerile system that makes the Planes less wondrous, and more &quot;Cookie Cutter&quot;. 

Where is Heironeous? Where is Nerull? Obad-Hai? Hell, what about Garl Glittergold? Looks likes the Halflings don&#039;t get a racial deity.....

Eliminating so many of the &quot;Traditional gods&quot; Seems pointless and unneeded.

3- The reintroduction of former Dungeons and Dragons Modules.

I ran a traditional Tomb of Horrors, using Mr.Gygax&#039;s no saving throw rules for Acererak, and my party had a blast(Gold more then compensated), but with 4th edition turning it&#039;s back on &quot;Save or Die&quot;, traditional adventures(and enemies for that matter), become boring and unengaging. I mean really, I want my Acererak to rip your soul out, and make my pcs watch their souls burn in his teeth. I want my Great Green Devil to be a ruthless black hole. These reintroductions marginalize the original visions of this games creator.

The author of this article presents several other valid reasons, which only strengthen my resolve.

Congratulations, Wizards. Your plan of buying out TSR, and destroying the game so people can buy your shitty card games is going swimmingly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>4th edition DND is a horrible abortion, comprised of the most unappealing and loathsome elements of a tabletop game. As a long time player, who has read nearly every single issue of dragon magazine(and the seven issue Strategic review that came before),who owns an original copy of Men and Magic,and played 3.x extensively, I must say that Mr.Gary Gygax is rolling in his grave. And how?</p>
<p>1-The elimination of the Alignment system.</p>
<p>Although some would see this a straight-jacket, I disagree. It was a crucial element to roleplaying. From nine, we have five, leaving mesh and overlay, which confuses and irks many, including those in my gaming group. </p>
<p>2-&#8221;Powers&#8221; and the elimination of Vancian Magic.</p>
<p>The implementation of powers in 4th edition is foolish and contrived. It marginalizes the distinct features of classes, and renders them all the same; just swap fighter with wizard, and your damage output will be the same! Spellcasters are now delegated to &#8220;DPS&#8221; machines, having to resort to rituals that an equivalent level 3.x spell caster could blow out of the water.</p>
<p>3-The elimination of traditional cosmologies, and gods.</p>
<p>Where is Limbo? Where is my Clock Work Nirvana? Gehnna? Hades? Nowhere to be found. 30+ years of development, eschewed in favor of a puerile system that makes the Planes less wondrous, and more &#8220;Cookie Cutter&#8221;. </p>
<p>Where is Heironeous? Where is Nerull? Obad-Hai? Hell, what about Garl Glittergold? Looks likes the Halflings don&#8217;t get a racial deity&#8230;..</p>
<p>Eliminating so many of the &#8220;Traditional gods&#8221; Seems pointless and unneeded.</p>
<p>3- The reintroduction of former Dungeons and Dragons Modules.</p>
<p>I ran a traditional Tomb of Horrors, using Mr.Gygax&#8217;s no saving throw rules for Acererak, and my party had a blast(Gold more then compensated), but with 4th edition turning it&#8217;s back on &#8220;Save or Die&#8221;, traditional adventures(and enemies for that matter), become boring and unengaging. I mean really, I want my Acererak to rip your soul out, and make my pcs watch their souls burn in his teeth. I want my Great Green Devil to be a ruthless black hole. These reintroductions marginalize the original visions of this games creator.</p>
<p>The author of this article presents several other valid reasons, which only strengthen my resolve.</p>
<p>Congratulations, Wizards. Your plan of buying out TSR, and destroying the game so people can buy your shitty card games is going swimmingly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tattooed_punkrock</title>
		<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/comment-page-2#comment-109889</link>
		<dc:creator>tattooed_punkrock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:55:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://d20.jonnydigital.com/?p=303#comment-109889</guid>
		<description>So, the move from 3rd / 3.5 D&amp;D to 4th was where i drew the line. I remember the 2nd - 3rd move, and although we were dragged there, it wasn&#039;t kicking and screaming. The new LENGTHY combat (attacks of opportunity?)tended to drag down our often large group (seldom less than 8), and many of us revolted though in time we grew to enjoy the new 3.5 system. Although I miss 2nd edition and all it&#039;s 0 - 60, KITS (fuck remember how cool kits were?), MIN / MAX Heaven. I was FURIOUS with Wizards changing my beloved RPG (2nd - 3.5). Everyone knew where all the tables were in the PH and DMG, and introducing a &quot;newbie&quot; to the group meant lots of hand-holding, but these &quot;rights of passage&quot; were part of the appeal. I understand the desire to make the game mechanics easier to grasp, but i HATE THAT. One of the most attractive aspects of gaming is esoterica. Our own language regarding &quot;fumbles&quot; and other colloquials created a sort of cabal where our aim was blood and glory until sunrise (or until we needed a break for more Mountain Dew). The dumbing down of D&amp;D is in some respect &quot;inclusive&quot;, but it as well diminishes the allure for me. I enjoy having to obtain (through play experience)the lexicon that included execution of basic play as well as the specifics of &quot;Delayed Blast Fireball&quot;, and how may more d6 damage it maxed at. My gaming group went out of our way to introduce new players to the game, encouraged creative game play, and had no problem slowing down to explain why Kobolds are always attacked last. Ok i get it, Wizards needs to sell books, they drool over the money WOW makes, but why not do what they do best, a game that one must dedicate time to understanding. If i wanted an easier game I&#039;d play RISK (which I do at times). Lets leave simplicity to Hasbro, and not attempt to be all things to all people. I&#039;m not crossing over to the &quot;4th ed. simplicity&quot;, i&#039;ll remain mired in 3.5 obscurity (or maybe step back to 2nd). But if Wizards continues it&#039;s campaign toward mediocrity while discontinuing support of beloved systems, they may end-up obscure themselves. A footnote on a page regarding fantasy gaming.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, the move from 3rd / 3.5 D&amp;D to 4th was where i drew the line. I remember the 2nd &#8211; 3rd move, and although we were dragged there, it wasn&#8217;t kicking and screaming. The new LENGTHY combat (attacks of opportunity?)tended to drag down our often large group (seldom less than 8), and many of us revolted though in time we grew to enjoy the new 3.5 system. Although I miss 2nd edition and all it&#8217;s 0 &#8211; 60, KITS (fuck remember how cool kits were?), MIN / MAX Heaven. I was FURIOUS with Wizards changing my beloved RPG (2nd &#8211; 3.5). Everyone knew where all the tables were in the PH and DMG, and introducing a &#8220;newbie&#8221; to the group meant lots of hand-holding, but these &#8220;rights of passage&#8221; were part of the appeal. I understand the desire to make the game mechanics easier to grasp, but i HATE THAT. One of the most attractive aspects of gaming is esoterica. Our own language regarding &#8220;fumbles&#8221; and other colloquials created a sort of cabal where our aim was blood and glory until sunrise (or until we needed a break for more Mountain Dew). The dumbing down of D&amp;D is in some respect &#8220;inclusive&#8221;, but it as well diminishes the allure for me. I enjoy having to obtain (through play experience)the lexicon that included execution of basic play as well as the specifics of &#8220;Delayed Blast Fireball&#8221;, and how may more d6 damage it maxed at. My gaming group went out of our way to introduce new players to the game, encouraged creative game play, and had no problem slowing down to explain why Kobolds are always attacked last. Ok i get it, Wizards needs to sell books, they drool over the money WOW makes, but why not do what they do best, a game that one must dedicate time to understanding. If i wanted an easier game I&#8217;d play RISK (which I do at times). Lets leave simplicity to Hasbro, and not attempt to be all things to all people. I&#8217;m not crossing over to the &#8220;4th ed. simplicity&#8221;, i&#8217;ll remain mired in 3.5 obscurity (or maybe step back to 2nd). But if Wizards continues it&#8217;s campaign toward mediocrity while discontinuing support of beloved systems, they may end-up obscure themselves. A footnote on a page regarding fantasy gaming.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grudgebringer</title>
		<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/comment-page-2#comment-106805</link>
		<dc:creator>Grudgebringer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 06:55:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://d20.jonnydigital.com/?p=303#comment-106805</guid>
		<description>i can&#039;t really comment on 4e, i&#039;ve yet to switch from 2e. i&#039;ve been playing this game for a little over 20 years now and have been disappointed with most publications presented by wotc. to me 3e was the gateway for trying to turn dnd into a table top video game. i ignored 3.5 and have absolutely no interest in 4e.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i can&#8217;t really comment on 4e, i&#8217;ve yet to switch from 2e. i&#8217;ve been playing this game for a little over 20 years now and have been disappointed with most publications presented by wotc. to me 3e was the gateway for trying to turn dnd into a table top video game. i ignored 3.5 and have absolutely no interest in 4e.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PanzerLion</title>
		<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/comment-page-2#comment-106760</link>
		<dc:creator>PanzerLion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:18:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://d20.jonnydigital.com/?p=303#comment-106760</guid>
		<description>I understand to that 3e and 3.5e were a powergamer&#039;s dream, with unlimited multiclassing and an unending selection of feats and methods to max out a character. A strong DM and individual restraint were often enough to deter the worst of it and still allow for a character concept to go directly from the players mind onto the sheet of paper in front of them with little or no modification. In effect, each character had their own talent tree and development path that was made for them specifically vs having one spelled out for them by a game mechanic that punishes outside the box thought.  To the point, while it is younger, 4e has already displayed increased favour of narrowly focused characters by releasing feats aimed overwhelmingly at a class in particular and then more so by requiring a race/class combo for many. This stymies creativity by saying &quot;You could go generic, or even outside the box... or you could take these carefully crafted feats and be like every other X and therefore be more effective in your class and racial role!&quot;. 

Looking to the area of 2e AD&amp;D, specifically the Player&#039;s Option era at the end, we see a balance between the outrageous explosion of options from 3e &amp; 3.5e and the severe reduction of them in 4e. In fact, the more I look back, 2e AD&amp;D had a decent set of checks and balances for players. You could modify your attributes/race/class/equipment and take a kit for a very unique character, or play it straight and still be entirely viable in battle. Iconic bands like the heroes of the original Dragonlance books, the Icewind Dale series or the Avatar trilogy aren&#039;t possible in the 4e game mechanics (their class combos, skills, items and parties don&#039;t &quot;work&quot;). 

WOTC made no bones about the fact that many of the changes and ideas that went into 4e were based in the MMORPG phenomena, and were done to attract online gamers and those familiar with online games. It worked. With 4e they offered the familiar Talent Tree, a rigid system with several outcomes, supported by a series of calculations that masquerade as real choices. Followed up by reducing the number of and types of weapons, armour, and mundane items available and assigning (in some cases very arbitrarily) levels to every magic item then carefully ensuring their powers became 1/encounter or 1/day effects, mimicking the &quot;cool down&quot; of online items and powers. 

The result is that players familiar only in passing with MMORPG&#039;s (i.e.: me) find the system frustratingly limited in scope and depth, with personal creativity stifled by a system of game mechanics designed to focus players onto one of a handful of goals. Feelings of reward are shifted from the achievement of seeing your personal creation succeed, and in doing so, enables the group to succeed to a different reward. The new reward is building the ideal build for your role, and then succeeding a party of like built characters. In both instances, the goal is group success, but one does it with whatever is at hand without punishing the players while the other was engineered to be difficult if you&#039;re not cooperating with the systems built in preferences to a standardized party.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand to that 3e and 3.5e were a powergamer&#8217;s dream, with unlimited multiclassing and an unending selection of feats and methods to max out a character. A strong DM and individual restraint were often enough to deter the worst of it and still allow for a character concept to go directly from the players mind onto the sheet of paper in front of them with little or no modification. In effect, each character had their own talent tree and development path that was made for them specifically vs having one spelled out for them by a game mechanic that punishes outside the box thought.  To the point, while it is younger, 4e has already displayed increased favour of narrowly focused characters by releasing feats aimed overwhelmingly at a class in particular and then more so by requiring a race/class combo for many. This stymies creativity by saying &#8220;You could go generic, or even outside the box&#8230; or you could take these carefully crafted feats and be like every other X and therefore be more effective in your class and racial role!&#8221;. </p>
<p>Looking to the area of 2e AD&amp;D, specifically the Player&#8217;s Option era at the end, we see a balance between the outrageous explosion of options from 3e &amp; 3.5e and the severe reduction of them in 4e. In fact, the more I look back, 2e AD&amp;D had a decent set of checks and balances for players. You could modify your attributes/race/class/equipment and take a kit for a very unique character, or play it straight and still be entirely viable in battle. Iconic bands like the heroes of the original Dragonlance books, the Icewind Dale series or the Avatar trilogy aren&#8217;t possible in the 4e game mechanics (their class combos, skills, items and parties don&#8217;t &#8220;work&#8221;). </p>
<p>WOTC made no bones about the fact that many of the changes and ideas that went into 4e were based in the MMORPG phenomena, and were done to attract online gamers and those familiar with online games. It worked. With 4e they offered the familiar Talent Tree, a rigid system with several outcomes, supported by a series of calculations that masquerade as real choices. Followed up by reducing the number of and types of weapons, armour, and mundane items available and assigning (in some cases very arbitrarily) levels to every magic item then carefully ensuring their powers became 1/encounter or 1/day effects, mimicking the &#8220;cool down&#8221; of online items and powers. </p>
<p>The result is that players familiar only in passing with MMORPG&#8217;s (i.e.: me) find the system frustratingly limited in scope and depth, with personal creativity stifled by a system of game mechanics designed to focus players onto one of a handful of goals. Feelings of reward are shifted from the achievement of seeing your personal creation succeed, and in doing so, enables the group to succeed to a different reward. The new reward is building the ideal build for your role, and then succeeding a party of like built characters. In both instances, the goal is group success, but one does it with whatever is at hand without punishing the players while the other was engineered to be difficult if you&#8217;re not cooperating with the systems built in preferences to a standardized party.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JM</title>
		<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/comment-page-2#comment-97385</link>
		<dc:creator>JM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Sep 2010 21:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://d20.jonnydigital.com/?p=303#comment-97385</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s a difference between complaining about 4th Edition simply because you&#039;re a reactionary curmudgeon, and expressing entirely legitimate and not in the least refuted gripes about the systemâ€”which has been done time and again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s a difference between complaining about 4th Edition simply because you&#8217;re a reactionary curmudgeon, and expressing entirely legitimate and not in the least refuted gripes about the systemâ€”which has been done time and again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Morales</title>
		<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/comment-page-1#comment-96923</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Morales</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://d20.jonnydigital.com/?p=303#comment-96923</guid>
		<description>People gotta remember: D&amp;D was made by modifying a-by then-existing miniature wargame. They added some roleplaying elements to the wargame, made it more personal instead of using armies, and you got your sweet D&amp;D.

And people complain about using minis while playing the game, when it&#039;s basically going back to core.

It&#039;s too WoW-like? In what regard? People keep saying this, but they never explain WHY. Because you have At-Wills, Encounter and Daily powers? Protip: you had those in previous editions, just less streamlined and worse.

Combat-oriented? Protip: D&amp;D has ALWAYS been about giving you rules for combat while you were given liberty OUTSIDE of combat. Why do you think old editions lacked skills the way most people knew then? You didn&#039;t need them. You didn&#039;t need a Perform(Lute) when your character has been playing the lute all his life. The game is as combat or skill oriented as YOU or the DM want it to be. I&#039;ve been playing in relatively RP-heavy campaigns based on 4th edition, and they&#039;re as great as any RP I would&#039;ve done in 3.x.

Less to work with regarding character customization? First, they removed negative scores from ALL races, so now a Half-Orc wizard is very viable and won&#039;t just hurt you badly. Second, you gain Feats every TWO levels, which allow you to customize your character more efficiently and quicker. Third, no more PrCs. They were clunky, hard to work it, and had TOO many prerequisites to take a level in them, which meant that you were SHOEHORNED into taking ranks in skills you will most likely NOT use to take a measly level in that PrC. Now, you have Paragon Paths. And you can still Multiclass, so you can play that one Fighter/Wizard you so much love, but now it&#039;s less of a hassle.

I&#039;m glad they removed metamagic from combat and kept it where it should be: OUTSIDE of combat. Fly and Invisibility are great spells, but when your mage is Corellon knows how many feet in the air, while invisible, fumbling through his spellbook to cast a save-or-die spell to obliterate half of the enemy forces, you know something is not right here.

I&#039;m glad the kinda removed the Vancian system. It&#039;s too shitty in lower levels and makes playing lower levels a hassle. Oh, the party Wizard ran out of Magic Missile and Color Spray, what will he do? Run away, that&#039;s what. In 4th edition, your character will NEVER be useless in that way.

Can&#039;t roleplay? WHat are skills, Rituals, martial arts and Martial Practices for then? And god forbid, ACTUAL player interaction?

Most people complaining about 4th edition are just...nostalgic, or they just don&#039;t want to spend money on new books. We&#039;re OK with that, but don&#039;t whine about a great system without trying it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People gotta remember: D&amp;D was made by modifying a-by then-existing miniature wargame. They added some roleplaying elements to the wargame, made it more personal instead of using armies, and you got your sweet D&amp;D.</p>
<p>And people complain about using minis while playing the game, when it&#8217;s basically going back to core.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s too WoW-like? In what regard? People keep saying this, but they never explain WHY. Because you have At-Wills, Encounter and Daily powers? Protip: you had those in previous editions, just less streamlined and worse.</p>
<p>Combat-oriented? Protip: D&amp;D has ALWAYS been about giving you rules for combat while you were given liberty OUTSIDE of combat. Why do you think old editions lacked skills the way most people knew then? You didn&#8217;t need them. You didn&#8217;t need a Perform(Lute) when your character has been playing the lute all his life. The game is as combat or skill oriented as YOU or the DM want it to be. I&#8217;ve been playing in relatively RP-heavy campaigns based on 4th edition, and they&#8217;re as great as any RP I would&#8217;ve done in 3.x.</p>
<p>Less to work with regarding character customization? First, they removed negative scores from ALL races, so now a Half-Orc wizard is very viable and won&#8217;t just hurt you badly. Second, you gain Feats every TWO levels, which allow you to customize your character more efficiently and quicker. Third, no more PrCs. They were clunky, hard to work it, and had TOO many prerequisites to take a level in them, which meant that you were SHOEHORNED into taking ranks in skills you will most likely NOT use to take a measly level in that PrC. Now, you have Paragon Paths. And you can still Multiclass, so you can play that one Fighter/Wizard you so much love, but now it&#8217;s less of a hassle.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad they removed metamagic from combat and kept it where it should be: OUTSIDE of combat. Fly and Invisibility are great spells, but when your mage is Corellon knows how many feet in the air, while invisible, fumbling through his spellbook to cast a save-or-die spell to obliterate half of the enemy forces, you know something is not right here.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad the kinda removed the Vancian system. It&#8217;s too shitty in lower levels and makes playing lower levels a hassle. Oh, the party Wizard ran out of Magic Missile and Color Spray, what will he do? Run away, that&#8217;s what. In 4th edition, your character will NEVER be useless in that way.</p>
<p>Can&#8217;t roleplay? WHat are skills, Rituals, martial arts and Martial Practices for then? And god forbid, ACTUAL player interaction?</p>
<p>Most people complaining about 4th edition are just&#8230;nostalgic, or they just don&#8217;t want to spend money on new books. We&#8217;re OK with that, but don&#8217;t whine about a great system without trying it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xamon Blackstar</title>
		<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/comment-page-1#comment-96333</link>
		<dc:creator>Xamon Blackstar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://d20.jonnydigital.com/?p=303#comment-96333</guid>
		<description>I definatly do not like 4th ed for the simple reason that it is ALL about combat, there is no story left, I&#039;m sorry but my first D&amp;D book was purple, thats how long I have been playing, loved D&amp;D, AD&amp;D1st, 2nd and 3.5. I actualy had the WOW d20 books and they were better than the 4th ed rules. People used to complain about hack and slash campaigns well that seems to be what WOTC wants everyone to play. My older stuff all the way back have honoured places on my shelves, the 4th ed books I have are stuffed in a drawer or box somewhere and shall remain there unless I decided to recycle them, I certainly wouldn&#039;t foist this garbage on someone else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I definatly do not like 4th ed for the simple reason that it is ALL about combat, there is no story left, I&#8217;m sorry but my first D&amp;D book was purple, thats how long I have been playing, loved D&amp;D, AD&amp;D1st, 2nd and 3.5. I actualy had the WOW d20 books and they were better than the 4th ed rules. People used to complain about hack and slash campaigns well that seems to be what WOTC wants everyone to play. My older stuff all the way back have honoured places on my shelves, the 4th ed books I have are stuffed in a drawer or box somewhere and shall remain there unless I decided to recycle them, I certainly wouldn&#8217;t foist this garbage on someone else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NJDevil88</title>
		<link>http://www.d20source.com/2008/08/why-people-hate-fourth-edition/comment-page-1#comment-93227</link>
		<dc:creator>NJDevil88</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://d20.jonnydigital.com/?p=303#comment-93227</guid>
		<description>I played it once and hated it.  I agree...it is WoW with pen, paper and pencils.  I had a group that was playing 3.5 and I kept it old school (1st ed ADD) type campaign.  The older guys loved it.  The younger guys (both avid WoW players) hated it and cried when they died (because they did something very dumb and were not used to not being able to ressurect ight away).  One of them bought 4th ed and we vgave it a try.  It ended the group. The older guys stayed with my campaign and the WoW players stayed with 4th ed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I played it once and hated it.  I agree&#8230;it is WoW with pen, paper and pencils.  I had a group that was playing 3.5 and I kept it old school (1st ed ADD) type campaign.  The older guys loved it.  The younger guys (both avid WoW players) hated it and cried when they died (because they did something very dumb and were not used to not being able to ressurect ight away).  One of them bought 4th ed and we vgave it a try.  It ended the group. The older guys stayed with my campaign and the WoW players stayed with 4th ed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

