Just how prevalent is 4th Edition?

[Karlton]

Here it is like:

2x 3.5
1x PF
0x 4e

It really annoys me that the most active DM decided to switch to Pathfailure for all the wrong reasons, thinking that 3.5 is broken because of all the extra material that is available beyond core, but Im sure that Paizo is working to 'fix' that 'advantage' as I write. The gaming world is fractured, and finding a game of my system of choice is probably not getting any easier as the time passes, and it is all 4es fault for dropping a steaming pile of WoW on the community.

[linklord231]

I play 3.5 with my friends at school, and 4e with my friends and family at home.  I briefly tried to do it the other way around at first, but my friends at home were turned off by how complicated 3.5 was and my friends at school hated how much 4e felt like a video game. 
As a player, I would much rather play 3.5 than 4e.  So many more options, the classes feel different than each other, it doesn't feel like a card game/MMO, etc.  You've heard it all before. 
As a DM, I would much rather play 4e.  It's way easier to design encounters that challenge the party but don't rape their faces.  Also, the experience budget system is much more intuitive than the CR system (though both have their strengths and weaknesses).  But the "skill challenge" thing in 4e is retarded on every level. 

I know 1 person who owns the Pathfinder core book (but nothing else, not even the bestiary or anything).  I flipped through it and saw some stuff that would make any of the melee people in my party weep tears of joy and envy, and saw that the casters took some pretty minor nerfs.  I thought to myself "Yeah, I could play this... if I hadn't already sunk a bunch of money in to 3.5 books.  Probably not worth it in my case."

[X-Codes]

I still don't understand the "feels like WoW" bitch about 4e.  Of all 4e's failings, this is one that I just don't understand.  Same with a card game.  I could agree with a board game view of it, since it's effectively a tactical miniatures game with some barely-there non-combat functionality, but I think the people going off on it being "video-gamey" are just plain stupid.

[Unbeliever]

I'm not sure.  I think part of might be a knee-jerk reaction to the system adopting MMO archetypes, or archetypes in an MMO type of fashion, rather than using the D&D approach to those archetypes. 

One actual possibility, though, is that so much of the game is "hard-coded," it's very controlled and spelled out. And, that might feel more like a video game, where there's nothing approaching a judgment call.  You could say something similar about board and card games, but even there, especially when they are complicated, there is often some ambiguity, where a computer program has to resolve all of that, right? 

[X-Codes]

The thing is, I think MMOs got that from D&D.  The iconic Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-user was a tank, healer, and a couple DPSers (remember that Fireball was awesome back then, therefore Magic-users were DPS).

[linklord231]

In my case, the players probably thought it felt too much like an MMO because of the terminology.  "Defender" obviously means "tank", "Striker" obviously means "DPS", and so on.  It felt like a card game because they literally had cards (index cards with their encounter/daily powers on them) that they played on the enemies.  They also found it odd that they were 'doing it wrong' if they ever made just a normal attack on someone.  There's nothing inherently wrong with that, they just found it odd. 

They also didn't like the concept of minions, even though I as a DM thought they were handy. 

[X-Codes]

Except Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller could just as easily mean Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-user as it does Tank, DPS, Healer, CC.  In fact, if you look at what these characters are actually capable of then the MMO terminology really doesn't match at all.  Defender damage is often not that far behind Striker damage, and is not even close to the difference between a Tank and DPS class in WoW.  Healing is a secondary role of Leaders, not a primary one, and Crowd Control in most modern MMO's isn't even a distinct role, anymore.

I guess that "card game" thing kinda makes sense, though, although I doubt it was ever said by someone that actually played MtG or Yu-Gi-Oh.  That said, I rather second the issue that the simple "attack" option was really never the thing to do.  They should have scrapped at-will powers and just had mid-combat recovery mechanics for Encounter powers.  I wouldn't call that a TCG or MMO thing, but definitely an oddity of the system.

[Unbeliever]

I think there is something to the renewed emphasis on roles though. Don't just dismiss it. Fighter is a much more general archetype than Defender or Tank is.

What I'm trying to say is this. In 3E you can say a Wizard is a guy who casts magic - whatever that means. And because it's D&D they are relatively fragile in some ways - hp and AC - though even without much optimization you could divert resources to shoring those up.

But if you say Wizard = Controller then you are tying classes to game concepts or roles much more tightly than I at least was used to. So the classes look a lot more like they do in Dragon Age Origins and stuff like that (I don't know much about MMOs but I think the class structure is similar).

This is a pretty big change from 3E build philosophy though maybe not from earlier editions. Maybe it doesn't matter that much now. Isn't there an arcane divine and martial version of every 4E role? But even then there is a stronger sense of your class defining what you're supposed to be doing in the game and combat. And as a side note I don't love how that's also tied to non-combat things too like skills.

Oh and I totally agree with the recovery mechanics thing. Still shocked they didn't go with that.

[X-Codes]

^ A lot of this comes from problems with both the 3.5e and 4e systems.

Yes, the Fighter is a general archetype.  So is the Wizard.  The issue is that they're also classes, when they really shouldn't be in a system like 3.5e or 4e.  As a result, you have two classes with the problem of being poorly-defined and hamstrung with the problem of a lack of direction or having absolutely every last, little toy to play with, resulting in something way more powerful than the designers apparently knew, respectively.  The best designed classes in 3.5e are classes with a finite, defined, and directed list of class features towards one goal, like the Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Crusader, Beguiler, etc.  Very few classes above T3 or below T4 follow this formula.

[Unbeliever]

Although again I don't think Duskblade, Factotum, or Beguiler clearly map to a given "role" in the game, especially using the 4E/computer game definition of such.

A Beguiler can debuff a group of targets, a single target, as well as buff himself or his allies.  The Controller class role, and I may be mistaken here since I'm not all that up on 4E, really does the first two, and even then really only emphasizes the first 1.  There's not a one to one mapping of role to class in these 3E classes.  In 4E, there is explicitly such a one to one mapping.  And, from what I've seen, that colors the entire class feature and power design.

Take the Crusader.  My gut instinct would be that he would map right into Defender or Tank.  But, as a player in 3E you really get to decide how much emphasis you want to put on that role.  And, a Crusader can very credibly serve as a controller (Thicket of Blades + AoOs, along with the eventual White Raven Hammer and Shield Counter maneuvers), leader/buffer type (White Raven, healing), or striker (Devoted Spirit, Stone Dragon, possibly some Channel the Storm shenanigans).  And, then there are other, more complicated mixes like the Bardsader or Ruby Knight Vindicator.

So, sure, while it might seem that the Crusader lends itself towards one kind of party role, depending on your feat, multiclass, and maneuver choices, you can straddle or fill many others. 

I did not feel the same sort of flex in 4E.  I played a 4E ranger on several occasions, and I did not feel that there was a couple of feats or a power I could take to, for instance, do some off-tanking or party-supporting.  And, this was with all the optimization forums at my disposal.  I was, with some creativity, able to make a lithe, mobile melee attacker who could knock down enemies and therefore disrupt their lines.  That was enjoyable, but it's pretty clearly the role of the 4E striker, with a bit more of a tactical rather than DPS emphasis. 

This, is, I think, what the MMO critique amounts to.  And, it doesn't help that the game doesn't have multiclassing or really prestige classes of the sort that 3E does b/c that removes a big set of options, as illustrated above.

[X-Codes]

You are absolutely right that those classes do not map to the 4e roles 1:1.  You are wrong in that you missed my point, and you are also wrong in that you assume that 4e classes map 1:1 to 4e roles.  The Druid in 4e is a Controller, but also has some Striker and Leader capacity.  In other words, it's exactly like the 3.5e Beguiler: they both primarily focus on mass debuffing/crowd control, but they also have some single-target debuffs and damage spells, and some buffing capabilities as well.

The point I was making, however, is that "Fighter" is a terrible name for a class, and a terrible class to try and design in 3.5e and 4e (although it worked in 2e and prior because of the way the system was designed).  Same goes for Cleric and, to some extent, Wizard and Sorcerer.  3e and 4e are systems where you define what your character is good at through class and feat choices.  Since the Fighter isn't really good at anything, it sucks.  Since the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are good at everything, they're significantly overpowered.  In 4e, they tried to fix this by limiting your options and standardizing everything to the point where there's little difference what, exactly, you decide to pick up, which IMO basically killed 3.5e's best feature.

That's why classes like Beguiler, Duskblade, and Factotum are good, because they have their thing.

[Unbeliever]

You're right, I did miss your point, though I have it now. 

I was responding to your query why people feel 4E is more like a video game.  The best answer, I think, meaning the one with the most merit and that really gets at what the knee-jerk reaction is, is that the mapping from class to role is much much more rigid than it is in 3E.  That makes the game feel more like Dragon Age or World of Warcraft than what people were used to from 3E D&D.  And, it also differs even from some computer games with very deep build mechanics, e.g., Diablo II. 

You can disagree with that statement, and I'll pretty much defer to superior familiarity.  But, in 20+ hours of playing, and much longer in character creation, I found it to be true. 

Further, look at the schticky 3E classes, like Beguiler, etc.  It occurs to me that it's not just that they can cover multiple roles.  It's also that their schtick isn't defined by their role.  The Factotum, Beguiler, and Duskblade only very softly have their roles defined for them, if that even.  Their schticks are more tied to, I don't know, the style of the character or narrative elements. 

Anyway, you can dispute the merits of the critique.  But, I think that's the best way to phrase it. 

[linklord231]

I was responding to your query why people feel 4E is more like a video game.  The best answer, I think, meaning the one with the most merit and that really gets at what the knee-jerk reaction is, is that the mapping from class to role is much much more rigid than it is in 3E.  That makes the game feel more like Dragon Age or World of Warcraft than what people were used to from 3E D&D.  And, it also differs even from some computer games with very deep build mechanics, e.g., Diablo II. 

This.  In 3.5, you and I could each build a Wizard type character, and they'd be totally different.  They'd have different spells, different prestige classes, and different roles in the party.
But in my experience, Wizards in 4e end up looking very similar to each other.  Yes there are minor differences in powers chosen, maybe one of them took a multiclass feat, and it's possible that they chose different Paragon and Epic paths.  But at the end of the day, 90% of 4e Wizards are Controllers.  Because that's what 4e Wizards do. 

I think a lot of it boils down to this issue:

Further, look at the schticky 3E classes, like Beguiler, etc.  It occurs to me that it's not just that they can cover multiple roles.  It's also that their schtick isn't defined by their role.  The Factotum, Beguiler, and Duskblade only very softly have their roles defined for them, if that even.  Their schticks are more tied to, I don't know, the style of the character or narrative elements. 

A Dread Necro doesn't have a role like "Controller" or "Leader".  It has the role of "Master of Necromancy Magic".  You can use a Dread Necro's abilities to create a horde of undead and use your minions as a form of battlefield control (and be the party's Controller), or you can make 1 or 2 super-zombies and use them more like a Defender, or you can be an Uttercold Assault Necromancer and be more like a Striker/Controller. 

I hope what I said kind of makes sense. 

[Dragon Snack]

At my store:

D&D 3.x = 0
PF =0
D&D 4E = 2 (including Encounters)
Savage Worlds = 6

So yeah, 4E is prevelent here if you compare it to 3.x/PF (there was no RPG scene before my store opened and I opened after the 3.5 books were gone from distribution).  But if you compare it to Savage Worlds, not so much...