Your opinions of 4th edition rules and why.

[voodoogroves]

Also mad props to Pathfinder if you want to try a different take on 3x. I have to put in a word there or Jason/Iuz may get cranky.

[Arkadios]

My first PnP i played was 4.0, i don't remember much of it. my DM didn't like it (he much prefered the 3.5 rules) so when the Pathfinder game came out he bought and ran it, i have since DM'd my own pathfinder roleplaying game, and tried to get my head around the 4.0 game system, but personally i found it hard work, and as mentioned before seems more like a "on paper MMO". i've also played the warhammer fantasy PnP rpg, it's based around the d6 and is also fun.
Recently got some AD&D books also and they are very different.

All in all i prefer the Pathfinder PnP RPG, but if "on paper MMO's" are your thing. 4.0 in itself is a nice ruleset.

[dkyle]

20th? Isn't 20th in 4.0 like hitting lvl 4 or 5 in 3.x? I'd hope you could kick your friend's rear or you are sorely doing something wrong.

It's like hitting level 13 or so. 4E's 30 is essentially 3.5's 20, in terms of expected number of sessions it'll take to get there.

It's a bit complicated by 4E's level 1 looking more like 3.5's level 3 or 4. It skips over the "die in one hit" and "wizard does one meaningful thing, then plays with his crossbow" stage.

[crazy7381]

I believe it is a good idea for players getting their feet wet but what is with the auto perception how can a dm keep up or even suprise players unless they bump quest level up way above what it should be. Also, I disliked the skill changes leaving most skill rolls up to dm to pick a skill I will stick with 3.5 and hope that ddo never converts to 4e rules...

[samthedagger]

In my humble opinion, 4th edition is a game designed to woo the MMO generation and younger folks into the RPG market. You have things like At-Will powers (3 sec cooldown), Encounter powers (1 minute cooldown) and Daily powers (10 minute cooldown). Play the game a little and you will quickly see the how the analogy works.

4th edition also diverges from previous editions with a very restrictive multiclassing system. As time has gone on, WotC realized this was a mistake and began introducing more permissive multiclassing rules. However, it is still far more difficult in 4th to make a character with the abilities of more than one class than it has been in almost any previous edition beyond D&D Basic.

One could argue the system is also incredibly simplistic compared to 3rd edition due to the disappearance of Vancian magic (and therefore a severe reduction in resource management) and the very short skill list. Whether this is a good thing or not is up to the individual though. Some like it, some (like me) do not. Saving throws have been altered so that the player no longer rolls to save, but has a save class, much like armor class, which is a static defense against certain attacks. This might be the most intuitive change to the system.

All in all, I have to say that I don't find much that is very enjoyable about it. Combat seems to offer more options, until you realize that (like MMOs) there are only a few powers that really have much use. I find 4th edition combat quite boring compared to almost every other edition of D&D. Finally, I have to say that aside from the fact that the game still allows for dungeons and dragons to be present, it just doesn't feel like D&D anymore. The class system is too strict. The powers are a novel concept, but fail to bring anything particularly useful to the game. And resource management, a hallmark of all D&D games up to now, is seriously lacking.

I suggest you return your 4th edition Player's Handbook and find another RPG. 3rd edition books are still relatively easy to come by, even if they aren't ubiquitous in every book store.

[Claransa]

Coming from 1st edition I find it extremely complicated and barely recognizable as D&D. The books have a nice layer of dust on them right now, what a waste of money. I'd sell them on eBay if I thought they were worth anything.

[Samiusbot]

4th is very much a training wheels on style of pnp dnd.

I will use it as a starting place to teach my son when if when he is really to learn to play. And it is a fine version to learn to play. Every class is the same. They removed the power curve that dnd has always had. Where each class had a time to really shine.

I personalty like 3.5 and Pathfinder i also was a die hard 2nd guy and loved to bust out my slide rule to calculate to hit, But i really like the d20 system.

Try 4th, and 3rd, and Pathfinder. heck there is no reason that you can't find a old school group if you look hard enough. Try them all. Play what edition you like.

Just keep in mind Dnd is not a cheep game to really get in to, and WotC is in the market of making money. They will make as many books as they can get people to buy. And when sales slow. Be on the look out for 5th!

[dkyle]

In my humble opinion, 4th edition is a game designed to woo the MMO generation and younger folks into the RPG market.

I played, and enjoyed, 4E far more than 3.5, long before I started playing DDO, my first MMO.

You have things like At-Will powers (3 sec cooldown), Encounter powers (1 minute cooldown) and Daily powers (10 minute cooldown). Play the game a little and you will quickly see the how the analogy works.

I've played it since it released, DM'd for 2 years, and have seen how poorly that analogy applies. At-Will is just a fancy name for something you can do each round. Such things certainly abound in 3.5. Dailies are in principle no different than spells and x-per-day abilities in 3.5. Encounters are a logical progression, fitting into the gap. Most adventures are a series of encounters. Once per encounter abilities make plenty of sense, and have been a major part of other RPGs for quite some time.

Encounters and Dailies are not on cooldowns. They only superficially look like it. They do not merely come back with time, they come back with rest. This is a major difference. Resting for 5 minutes to get back minor abilities is no more MMO-like than resting for 8 hours to get back major ones.

4th edition also diverges from previous editions with a very restrictive multiclassing system. As time has gone on, WotC realized this was a mistake and began introducing more permissive multiclassing rules. However, it is still far more difficult in 4th to make a character with the abilities of more than one class than it has been in almost any previous edition beyond D&D Basic.

I'm not very familiar with pre-3E rules, but from what I've heard, 4E's multiclassing rules are both more flexible than pre-3E, and far more balanced than 3E/3.5. As far as "realizing their mistake and adding more rules"? They did add a new multiclassing option in the PHB2, Hybrid classes. I consider it an expanison of the game, not a fix to a broken system. The multi-classing in PHB still exists essentially unchanged, is used, and works fine.

Basically, Hybrids allow for dual-class-type builds, while the original system is geared towards splashing other classes. Yes, it's less flexible than in 3.5, but it's a heck of a lot more balanced.

One could argue the system is also incredibly simplistic compared to 3rd edition due to the disappearance of Vancian magic (and therefore a severe reduction in resource management)

Not so much. It basically extended Vancian magic to everyone. Everyone now has Dailies to manage (well, until Essentials). Everyone now also has encounter and healing surges to manage.

Gold management is reduced, since you can no longer simply buy your way out of any situation (potions scrolls and wands are very limited). But I'd consider that a good thing.

[der_kluge]

I agree with Entelech. Pathfinder is the way to go. It's based on 3.5, so the learning curve is very low. 4th edition is not D&D, IMHO. It's far too bland for my taste.

See if there is a Pathfinder Society in your area. That might be more to your taste.

[flynnjsw]

See if there is a Pathfinder Society in your area. That might be more to your taste.

For those that are unaware, Pathfinder Society is Paizo/Pathfinders version of Living City/Living Greyhawk, Living Forgotten Realms.

[Chai]

The thing with every edition was to change the way the gaming session was handled, which sort of makes sense.
But in the process they trampled through all the wonderful setting and setting building that was accumulated in between.

2e had a lot of things right, from realistic weapons, multiclassing, etc.
But 2e suffered from lack and messy customization, which was really needed since the supplements were complex and the settings expansion were piling up.

3e came with all that customization in an orderly fashion, with the d20 simplifying a lot of things.
There were faster character building, adventure planning and also better gameplay.
The sourcebooks could be better balanced, but only over a given setting, since d&d turned into a building kit rather than the game itself.

Then came 4e to clean the house. You could only have so much customization so DMs had to trim their game to make it balanced.
With 4e the thing was to have functional building and playing again.
But ditching all the customization which is where d&d is being yelled collectively.

And in between goes DDO throwing the MMO on top of it, like trying to fit a square inside a circle, or whatever the saying was.

Sadly you can hardly have the best of each, them being fairly incompatible.
The DMs of 2e had much more freedom to add new things but not enough frames to make it balanced.
Until 4e gets as much supplements as 3e the DMs are like walking in the dark.

This right here is why I think 2e nailed it and still gets the most props round these parts.

The designers realized players wanted more customization etc inthe 2e era...and they gave it to us on a silver platter.....until they "overdid" that aspect and then felt 4e had to come along and do away with most of it. 3e and 3.5 were awesome rulesets but learning it took time. Alot of people dont like taking that amount of time to learn to play a game correctly. This is what i was attracted to. This translates to DDO in the MMO realm for me as well. Want more options? It will take longer to learn the game. The upside is that characters arent all cookie cutter. 20 different people can roll up 20 fighters and all can be unique.

In my opinion as a player, there cant be too much customization. Looking at it from a business standpoint however, the ADHD laden culture we live in wants it all and wants it now. The question for business people at WOTC is "how much is too much?" People cried that there wasnt enough options in 2.0 but there was too much in 3.5. Wheres the happy medium?

What I think we did very well in our 3.5 campaigns, was to incorporate customization as an optional entity. All 952 splat books arent needed in order to play a good session of P&P D&D. If players want more options, you can get into that but its not absolutely necessary. Major issues occur however, when optimizers (a euphamism for min maxers) start learning what the OP class / race combinations are and now you have a bunch of Pun-Puns running around starting with 3 dump stats, 2 maxed out, and 1 average. It now becomes a game where theres almost no gray area. Either the players can wipe the board clean of encounters in a few short rounds, or the players weak stats get attacked and they die quickly. The earlier editions solved part of this issue by making you roll your stats, and not just allocating them. I allow people to roll stats then pick the class if they want. It makes sense that the brainiac who cant lift a sack of wheat became an apprentice wizard, while the strong lady who, while not ********, isnt all that smart either, grew up to become a soldier, etc.

So we start over with 4.0e. Players are already wanting more customization. WOTC is delivering. Same questions need to be answered. How much will be too much? Where is the happy medium? If you dont give us enough, the ADHD kicks in, we get bored and play something else. If they give us too much, the ADHD kicks in because it takes too long to learn to play effectively, and we go play something else.

Did they really need to scrap the entire previous game to start over with alot of new rules in order to run into the same obsticles over and over again? I dont see progress here - only major change. Progress was being made with 3.5 because we knew what the issues were. Now we have another game that is and will continue to become equally broke, but all the issues havent even been identified yet. Getting rid of the issue isnt solving the issue. They are just postponing when they have to deal with it.

To me, this is like deciding that computers have become too complicated and too much of a hassle, so we are going back to running Commodore 64s and Ti99-4a machines hoping that when we go through the entire progression of technology again, we dont run into the same issues we did last time.

Somewhere in Silicon Valley in California, there is a ditch of bulldozed Apple Lisa machines that were destroyed because they didnt sell in the 80s, and I think we can rock those now. Start digging.

[Grifarr]

I would also like to sing the praises of Pathfinder if one is looking to move away from 3.5. WoTC took a page from Games Workshop's playbook and watered down the game to appeal to the younger crowd. In my opinion Pathfinder took steps to fix some of the class power issues that folks in our group experienced in 3.5. There are still some things that could be improved on or clarified but for a first version it is pretty solid. Additionally if you are playing any of the Piazo/Dragon published adventure paths they port over quite nicely. We have an Age of Worms campaign that we switched over mid arc and a Shackled City campaign we started in 3.5 and restarted in Pathfinder and both are progressing nicely. The only warning being that trying to bring in 3.5 splash book stuff can completely offbalance Pathfinder.

[DFraser]

I personally enjoy running and playing 4th edition. I have played all 4 editions of D&D as well as the Rules Cyclopedia. It is different from all previous editions, is that bad, no it is what it is different. As far as it being a minitures game, or a MMO on paper, once again, is that bad, no it is what it is. The role playing part of ANY RPG is the GM and the players, not the rules. The rules are there to tell you how to do things like skill checks and combat. Now my only complant about 4th edition is the heros never get really EPIC, but as long as you understand this its fine.
If you want to try it go to a local game shop on any Wed of the week and see if they have an encounters group.

[Chai]

I've played it since it released, DM'd for 2 years, and have seen how poorly that analogy applies. At-Will is just a fancy name for something you can do each round. Such things certainly abound in 3.5. Dailies are in principle no different than spells and x-per-day abilities in 3.5. Encounters are a logical progression, fitting into the gap. Most adventures are a series of encounters. Once per encounter abilities make plenty of sense, and have been a major part of other RPGs for quite some time.

.

I have played / DMed for ~23 years now and battle tested each of the editions before they came out starting at 2e, and I can say that comparing the mechanics of 4.0 to MMO mechanics is the best analogy I have heard regarding 4.0. Yes all the other editions have abilities that can be used once per time unit but they dont do this on a tier system like an MMO does. 4.0e does this, and it looks like WOW cooldowns on paper to me. I had the ability to look at quite a few feedback sheets that were submitted. ~75% of them had some comment about this edition being an MMO reverse engineered for paper and pencil gaming. This was done to market the game to the younger crowd whose first exposure to fantasy gaming was MMOs.

Once per encounter abilities make no sense froma reality standpoint. I can only swing my ax really hard once per encounter? LOL :P

Once per encounter abilities only make sense in games as a mechanic, and guess who pioneered this type of system. /drum roll....MMOs!!!

This also becomes skewed and blurred when the encounter lines become blurred. When does the first encounter stop and the second encounter begin. I already used my once per encounter ability. There are two wounded goblins left. They make a run for it because they know they cant take us. The second encounter is planned for the next big room as an ambush, which the first encounter is running toward. We run after them and the chase is on. When I round the corner to the other room, I catch up to the goblin that ran and want to attack. The second encounter goblins take their pot shots. I now have an attack waiting - can I use my once per encounter move again? Answer carefully....

4.0 thinks it resolved most of the issues 2.0 - 3.5 created by eliminating the mechanics that were associated with those issues. The issues remain however. The mechanics and rules for dealing with those issues are the only thing that changed. This is like saying too many people are swerving over the centerline on the highway, so we are doing away with centerlines. There should be alot less head on crashes now, right?

[katana_one]

Each system has pros and cons. I like 3.5 and 4.0, but I like (and dislike) each of them for different reasons.

I like 3.5 because character building is so flexible, especially multi-classing. I like the concepts of DR, having three Saving Throw types (instead of five), Cleric Domains and a lot of other things.

I like 4.0 because of the better survivability it gives 1st level characters. I like the departure from the "Vancian" magic rules (Vancian magic always kinda bugged me). I absolutely *love* not having to count rounds for spell durations (all durations are either instantaneous, save ends, or end of the encounter).

As for roleplaying, the group I'm in will roleplay anything, and 4e is no more a deterrent to RP than any other system. I will admit that it does "feel" different but that didn't stop me from using 4e to reboot my old "Basic" D&D campaign.

[dkyle]

Yes all the other editions have abilities that can be used once per time unit but they dont do this on a tier system like an MMO does.

The "tier-system" is not what's characteristic of MMOs. The "comes back after a certain time"-aspect is what is. 4E does not have this. It has "comes back after resting".

4.0e does this, and it looks like WOW cooldowns on paper to me. I had the ability to look at quite a few feedback sheets that were submitted. ~75% of them had some comment about this edition being an MMO reverse engineered for paper and pencil gaming.

"Looks like" being the key phrase. Superficially, I could see the confusion for first-time players. Even 75% of first-time players. The distinction between "comes back after 5 minutes" and "comes back after 5 minutes of resting" is subtle, but in practice, there's a big difference.

Once per encounter abilities make no sense froma reality standpoint. I can only swing my ax really hard once per encounter? LOL :P

I agree that martial dailies and encounters are a bit wonky. They have to be justified from a narrative perspective instead of a simulationist perspective. It's not "my character only knows how to swing my axe this way once per encounter". It's, "I, the player, get to decide that the conditions are right for my character to do this once per encounter". A narrative approach is perfectly fine for RPGs, but confuses traditional D&D players, hence the new Essentials version of Fighter and Rogue that steps away from martial dailies and encounters.

But there's nothing wrong with them for casters and other magically-empowered classes. And if you look at 3.5 classes and 4E classes, those make up the majority of classes available.

Once per encounter abilities only make sense in games as a mechanic, and guess who pioneered this type of system. /drum roll....MMOs!!!

Or board games, tactics games, miniatures games. Many games have made simplifications to enable consistent rules, at the expense of realism. Long before MMOs. Even in D&D. Or I suppose HP and AC both reflect reality perfectly?

Not to mention many many RPGs in existence that take a step back from simulationist rules.

This also becomes skewed and blurred when the encounter lines become blurred. When does the first encounter stop and the second encounter begin. I already used my once per encounter ability. There are two wounded goblins left. They make a run for it because they know they cant take us. The second encounter is planned for the next big room as an ambush, which the first encounter is running toward. We run after them and the chase is on. When I round the corner to the other room, I catch up to the goblin that ran and want to attack. The second encounter goblins take their pot shots. I now have an attack waiting - can I use my once per encounter move again? Answer carefully....

It's very simple, but I suspect you think you're going to catch me in some kind of a trick. The rules are crystal clear that "encounter power" is just shorthand for "power that comes back after the PC rests 5 minutes". In the above scenerio, the encounter power is not usable in the second "encounter". The PCs chose to rush headlong into an ambush. It's their fault if that was an unwise decision. They had the choice of taking a tactical retreat, resting, and allowing the goblins to get away.

A good DM would design this scenerio with the potential for the PCs chasing the goblins in mind, and give them a weaker ambush if they pursue without resting (enemies have little time to prepare), and a much stronger fight if they do rest (enemies have time to muster and take defensive positions).

And before you ask, "until end of encounter" is shorthand for "for five minutes, or until it's no longer relevant". Typically, when the combat ends.

This is like saying too many people are swerving over the centerline on the highway, so we are doing away with centerlines. There should be alot less head on crashes now, right?

Yeah, or not like that at all. For me, 4E is more like removing superfluous and confusing additional lines from the highway, leaving only the important, and essential centerline.

[Chai]

The "tier-system" is not what's characteristic of MMOs. The "comes back after a certain time"-aspect is what is. 4E does not have this. It has "comes back after resting".

No, the tier system was first previewed in MMOs, or actually borrowed by MMOs from past video games pre MMO internet. Most of them have cooldowns that are one of three of four durations only, especially for melee abilities. 4e took this EVEN FURTHER by making casters adhere to this as well.

"Looks like" being the key phrase. Superficially, I could see the confusion for first-time players. Even 75% of first-time players. The distinction between "comes back after 5 minutes" and "comes back after 5 minutes of resting" is subtle, but in practice, there's a big difference.

I agree that martial dailies and encounters are a bit wonky. They have to be justified from a narrative perspective instead of a simulationist perspective. It's not "my character only knows how to swing my axe this way once per encounter". It's, "I, the player, get to decide that the conditions are right for my character to do this once per encounter". A narrative approach is perfectly fine for RPGs, but confuses traditional D&D players, hence the new Essentials version of Fighter and Rogue that steps away from martial dailies and encounters.

Confuses traditional DnD players? 4e? Cooldowns? Which have been in video games since the 70s?

Not likely. Sorry.

The fact that many traditional DnD players dont like or agree with 4e doesnt mean it confuses us. In fact i think its the other way around. 3.5 was too complicated for many people who were educated about fantasy gaming by MMOs to understand in a small amount of time, so they rolled out 4e - a reverse engineered MMO for paper. Its easy to understand if you just logged off EQ or WOW to play some PnP DnD.

But there's nothing wrong with them for casters and other magically-empowered classes. And if you look at 3.5 classes and 4E classes, those make up the majority of classes available.

Im not saying theres anythingwrong with it - its just not DnD. Has Blizzard marketed this game and not WOTC, I'd be happy. I dont mind the EQ RPG either, but if they called it DnD 5.0, I would protest as much as I do about 4.0.

Or board games, tactics games, miniatures games. Many games have made simplifications to enable consistent rules, at the expense of realism. Long before MMOs. Even in D&D. Or I suppose HP and AC both reflect reality perfectly?

And what separated DnD from "those other games" was its complexity. Players of "those other games" laugh because we were different. We laughed because they were all the same. Toss 4e right on top of that pile.

HP is the better mechanic in 3.5 than it is in 4.0, because a player or a mob can die in one action, which is alot more realistic. Take that out, which 4e did, and take crits out, which 4e did (max damage, pffft) and hp becomes a less realistic mechanic, because its now a huge DPS grind fest. I get the same feeling playing epic quests as I get when playing 4e. The only way to kill things is to damage their HP past 0. Stuff has alot of HP and deals very little damage.

It's very simple, but I suspect you think you're going to catch me in some kind of a trick. The rules are crystal clear that "encounter power" is just shorthand for "power that comes back after the PC rests 5 minutes". In the above scenerio, the encounter power is not usable in the second "encounter". The PCs chose to rush headlong into an ambush. It's their fault if that was an unwise decision. They had the choice of taking a tactical retreat, resting, and allowing the goblins to get away.

A good DM would design this scenerio with the potential for the PCs chasing the goblins in mind, and give them a weaker ambush if they pursue without resting (enemies have little time to prepare), and a much stronger fight if they do rest (enemies have time to muster and take defensive positions).

So you just waltzed into a goblin dungeon lair, attacked their forward guard, kicked their tails, they fled, and now all of the other goblins who know the adventuring party is there, and that they have the party outnumbered are perfectly content to call timeout and rest 5 minutes.

This is WOW and EQ2 in a nutshell. Encounter starts, you use mana, powers, combo points etc etc to beat the mobs....when the encounter ends, everyone sheathes their weapons and the regen rate of abilities becomes huge until the group is topped off, which allows the party to walk over to the next encounter. Rinse, repeat. You kill encounters right in front of other encounters and they dont respond unless you get right up on them.

And before you ask, "until end of encounter" is shorthand for "for five minutes, or until it's no longer relevant". Typically, when the combat ends.

So now its a kung fu movie plot. Theres 90 goblins in here, but they are all going to attack us 5 at a time, in 5 minute intervals. I like final fantasy too. It was cool in '85 or so...

Yeah, or not like that at all. For me, 4E is more like removing superfluous and confusing additional lines from the highway, leaving only the important, and essential centerline .

And then claiming it solved the head on crash problems, which it doesnt. There were no additional lines in the first place. People just didnt know the rules of the road, nor did they want to take the time to learn.

[Xenus_Paradox]

4E is a great system in its own right, but those who are married to older editions will hate it.

[dkyle]

No, the tier system was first previewed in MMOs, or actually borrowed by MMOs from past video games pre MMO internet. Most of them have cooldowns that are one of three of four durations only, especially for melee abilities. 4e took this EVEN FURTHER by making casters adhere to this as well.

I've tried giving explanations, and rationales, but I'll make it simple, then:

4E doesn't have cooldowns.

Therefore, it cannot be based on cooldowns in MMOs.

It has something that superficially resembles them, but is in fact entirely different. It simply adds a short rest in addition to the existing DnD notion of an overnight rest.

Confuses traditional DnD players? 4e? Cooldowns? Which have been in video games since the 70s?

I'll take the fact that you seem to have completely miss my point as confirmation of my point, which is that narrative-style RPGs tend to confuse D&D traditionalists, as D&D has traditionally been a very simulationist game. I never suggested "cooldowns" confuse anyone.

But in any event, I'm in agreement that martial encounters and dailies don't fit great with D&D as it had previously been. Incorporating narrative-RPG elements into a simulationist game isn't ideal. I simply don't think that cost outweighs the benefits of a unified rules system that forms the basis for all player characters.

And now Essentials has found a way to alleviate that problem while maintaining compatibility with the overall 4E ruleset.

Im not saying theres anythingwrong with it - its just not DnD. Has Blizzard marketed this game and not WOTC, I'd be happy. I dont mind the EQ RPG either, but if they called it DnD 5.0, I would protest as much as I do about 4.0.

So spells that come back after 5 minutes of rest have no place in DnD, but spells that come back after 8 hours of rest are fine? I'm not seeing the distinction, other than a blind hatred of anything new.

And what separated DnD from "those other games" was its complexity.

Not so much. Real tactics and miniatures games are far more complicated than any edition of D&D. What separated D&D from those games was that it was a Role-Playing game. A game that borrowed a simplified version of a tactics game's rules (Chainmail), added persistent characters and storytelling elements. 4E, if anything, returns to those roots, by making a solid (well-designed, not overly complicated) tactics game which enables and encourages role-playing.

HP is the better mechanic in 3.5 than it is in 4.0, because a player or a mob can die in one action, which is alot more realistic. Take that out, which 4e did, and take crits out, which 4e did (max damage, pffft) and hp becomes a less realistic mechanic, because its now a huge DPS grind fest. I get the same feeling playing epic quests as I get when playing 4e. The only way to kill things is to damage their HP past 0. Stuff has alot of HP and deals very little damage.

Only if by "better", you mean irrelevant. Only chumps with swords cared about monster's HP. The real players played casters that killed immediately.

4E made HP what it intuitively should be: a measure of much of a beating you can take before you die. WotC has acknowledged too much inflation of monster HP and too little damage in later levels, but that's a matter of fine-tuning, not an irredeemable flaw of the system.

Also, max damage is mathematically similar to the 2x critical multiplier in 3.5. Not seeing a huge problem there.

So you just waltzed into a goblin dungeon lair, attacked their forward guard, kicked their tails, they fled, and now all of the other goblins who know the adventuring party is there, and that they have the party outnumbered are perfectly content to call timeout and rest 5 minutes.

Perhaps they like their odds better fighting a defensive fight in their fortified positions, instead of coming out to meet the adventurers. Or perhaps the party decides to rest, but is interrupted seconds later. In this case, it's simply a single encounter with two waves.

Nothing in 4E forces monsters to respect 5 minute rests. DMs are simply encouraged to understand that PCs can only face so much per 5 minute rest, and set things up accordingly. Is it wrong for an RPG to included limited short-term resources? Is it absurd that adventurers might get tired from continuous combat and need a breather to let their muscles/minds relax? A DM shouldn't throw 100 goblins at once at a low level party and expect them to win through combat, any more than if he should throw a Tarrasque at them.

You kill encounters right in front of other encounters and they dont respond unless you get right up on them.

That's a matter of the DM's quest/adventure design. Nothing to do with the ruleset. Do that in my game, and you would certainly get a response. But I generally don't put separate encounters close together. That notion is best represented by a single encounter with waves.

Besides, killing monsters room by room, that don't react until their door is opened, in a dungeon crawl is a time honored tradition in D&D.

Theres 90 goblins in here, but they are all going to attack us 5 at a time, in 5 minute intervals.

That makes no sense as a response to what I wrote. It's a complete non-sequitor. I'm simply noting that when effects say "until end of encounter", they essentially mean "for five minutes". If another fight happens to occur within those five minutes, well, it's still part of the previous encounter.

A DM is free to send 90 goblins after a party simultaneously. It's then a question of whether it's wise for a DM to do such a thing.

And then claiming it solved the head on crash problems, which it doesnt. There were no additional lines in the first place. People just didnt know the rules of the road, nor did they want to take the time to learn.

This analogy was quite tortured from the get-go. Best to discuss the actual games in question instead of beating it any more.

[ddobard1]

I am reading the books of D&D 4th Edition, I enjoy the reading, and the RPG looks great!
But I never played any edition of D&D.
I don't know previous D&D Editions, only 3.5 from DDO.