Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition: Initial Impressions

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Streamlined is just another mindless buzz word. Sure it moves "quicker"; they removed a good portion of the customization and choices.

Most of the choices in 3rd Edition were fake choices. "Should I do this or some other thing that is narratively similar but game-mechanically inferior?" They published whole books with only two or three pages of truly well-wrought, useful game mechanics. (Some good ones, too, but numerous bad ones.)

And most of the character customization was "lonely fun" -- stuff you did outside of play by yourself or chattered about on a forum instead of stuff that actually made the game session itself more meaningful.

-- Alex

Can I just say that 'lonely fun' made me do a quick double take to make sure you weren't...you know.

 

[McClaud]

Ha ha ha ha. I'm so totally going to use that at GenCon as a code word for something else, and then say I'm quoting Alex_P.

"You sure you're not running of to have ... some loney fun like Alex_P does, yeah?"

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

D&D for Dummies

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Are we still on this? I thought we had this wrapped up?

If you don't like 4th edition, don't play it.

 

[Chibz]

Wow. That was one of the better reviews of a tabletop game I've ever read. Kudos are in order.

I was actually debating whether or not to make the shift to v4 while I was in the comic book store the other day. (I was there looking for the next in the Y: The Last Man Series - I don't make a habit of loitering in those sorts of places.) I glanced the v4 core rule book box set. After some digging I found out it supposedly "simplified" the game.

I was intrigued, as I've often thought aspects of v3 were needlessly complicated. But, after your review, it seems that I'd be best sticking with v3. (I'm not springing for v3.5, either. I just homebrewize the house rules until they make sense, like v3.5 was supposed to do.)

Maybe I should just roll a d20 to decide, but my instincts are to stick with what I know. To hell with it. I'm DMing. As long as I know the full rules*, the players probably don't need to. Probably.


*By full rules, I mean everything except Mounted Combat. I'll never understand how the hell that's supposed to run.

Yeah, that's one bit my parties rarely bother with. Usually they all get some crazy speed enhancements and can easily outrun their horse/tiger/pony/giant frog anyway. I suppose if I ever decided to run a "knights" campaign I'd read up on mounted combat, but until then (or a meteor crashes through the roof and smashes the laptop, which is more likely) I'll just not bother with it.

I, personally, use the mounted combat system. The only class who, without magic items, can outrun someone on a warhorse would be the monk.

At low levels mounted combat makes the lance much more viable weapon.

Scouts can outrun a horse, no problem. I was referring more to my group's tendency to try and get/make items that eventually increase their speed to the point where having a horse slows them down.

Indeed, the lance can be a formidable weapon in the right situations, but I find that a standard dungeon crawl basically makes the fighter who chose to go the mounted combat route feel like he's wasted a feat or three. Most of my games are not really the type where men on horses charge across the plains.

Finally, a party of warforged make horses utterly pointless. They have no need to eat, sleep, or otherwise rest because they never become fatigued, so they can continue nonstop until they reach their destination.

Doesn't work for every campaign world, but it works in some (my own included). Then again I also built a barbarian who could grapple, trip, or just plain flay people. In fact, almost every combat option available.

Don't understand how people can call them useless.

 

[ame.kiri.yuki]

Okay, forget the which-is-better argument. Can anyone here tell me why they feel a need to try to convince others that a game is not worth playing because that is their own personal opinion? Please do not try to correct or attack my wording, because in doing so you prove that you know very well what I MEANT to say.

 

[Chibz]

Okay, forget the which-is-better argument. Can anyone here tell me why they feel a need to try to convince others that a game is not worth playing because that is their own personal opinion? Please do not try to correct or attack my wording, because in doing so you prove that you know very well what I MEANT to say.

Well, it's a matter that WOTC seems to feel the need to alienate their current fanbase to draw in a whole different crowd, every "update" to each game they make.

They also have TWO wargames going now, instead of just one. Both with almost identical names!

 

[ame.kiri.yuki]

So how exactly will arguing with other people help if they are not in any position to do anything about it even if you do manage to convince them? It is very unlikely that an employee of WOTC will read these arguments, and think you're in the right, and change things. You are not forced to play 4.0 or anything other than what you want to... I assume.

 

[Alex_P]

Ha ha ha ha. I'm so totally going to use that at GenCon as a code word for something else, and then say I'm quoting Alex_P.

"You sure you're not running of to have ... some loney fun like Alex_P does, yeah?"

Knock yourself out, chief. You're going to be very disappointed, though, as it's already standard jargon, just like "badwrongfun" and "catpiss man".

-- Alex

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Are we still on this? I thought we had this wrapped up?

If you don't like 4th edition, don't play it.

I was annoyed about the changes in DnD... and then I realized that the last time I played an actual game of Dungeons and Dragons proper was about 3 years ago... and I hated it...

There are other, better games out there.

And for those of you who still like DnD but hate 4th Ed, Piazo loves you so they've made Pathfinder.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Are we still on this? I thought we had this wrapped up?

If you don't like 4th edition, don't play it.

I was annoyed about the changes in DnD... and then I realized that the last time I played an actual game of Dungeons and Dragons proper was about 3 years ago... and I hated it...

There are other, better games out there.

And for those of you who still like DnD but hate 4th Ed, Piazo loves you so they've made Pathfinder.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

Well that was certainly good of them, but if I wanted to play D&D, but didn't want to play 4th edition, I'd just played 2nd or 3rd, which was sort of my point all along.

 

[Alex_P]

And for those of you who still like DnD but hate 4th Ed, Piazo loves you so they've made Pathfinder.

Perhaps they do love you. But their love is misguided. If they truly loved you, they'd help you break out of this cycle of book-a-month addiction.

-- Alex

 

[Chibz]

And for those of you who still like DnD but hate 4th Ed, Piazo loves you so they've made Pathfinder.

Perhaps they do love you. But their love is misguided. If they truly loved you, they'd help you break out of this cycle of book-a-month addiction.

-- Alex

What book-a-month addiction? Sure I have 650 books (which all see regular use), but I don't switch book-by-book like you suggest.

This is the other reason why 4th edition came about: They ran out of book ideas for 3.5. Now they're re-releasing everything in 4th.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Wow. That was one of the better reviews of a tabletop game I've ever read. Kudos are in order.

I was actually debating whether or not to make the shift to v4 while I was in the comic book store the other day. (I was there looking for the next in the Y: The Last Man Series - I don't make a habit of loitering in those sorts of places.) I glanced the v4 core rule book box set. After some digging I found out it supposedly "simplified" the game.

I was intrigued, as I've often thought aspects of v3 were needlessly complicated. But, after your review, it seems that I'd be best sticking with v3. (I'm not springing for v3.5, either. I just homebrewize the house rules until they make sense, like v3.5 was supposed to do.)

Maybe I should just roll a d20 to decide, but my instincts are to stick with what I know. To hell with it. I'm DMing. As long as I know the full rules*, the players probably don't need to. Probably.


*By full rules, I mean everything except Mounted Combat. I'll never understand how the hell that's supposed to run.

Yeah, that's one bit my parties rarely bother with. Usually they all get some crazy speed enhancements and can easily outrun their horse/tiger/pony/giant frog anyway. I suppose if I ever decided to run a "knights" campaign I'd read up on mounted combat, but until then (or a meteor crashes through the roof and smashes the laptop, which is more likely) I'll just not bother with it.

I, personally, use the mounted combat system. The only class who, without magic items, can outrun someone on a warhorse would be the monk.

At low levels mounted combat makes the lance much more viable weapon.

Scouts can outrun a horse, no problem. I was referring more to my group's tendency to try and get/make items that eventually increase their speed to the point where having a horse slows them down.

Indeed, the lance can be a formidable weapon in the right situations, but I find that a standard dungeon crawl basically makes the fighter who chose to go the mounted combat route feel like he's wasted a feat or three. Most of my games are not really the type where men on horses charge across the plains.

Finally, a party of warforged make horses utterly pointless. They have no need to eat, sleep, or otherwise rest because they never become fatigued, so they can continue nonstop until they reach their destination.

Doesn't work for every campaign world, but it works in some (my own included). Then again I also built a barbarian who could grapple, trip, or just plain flay people. In fact, almost every combat option available.

Don't understand how people can call them useless.

It's interesting. You like using the mounted combat rules, where as I tend to use grappling rules a lot. I'm not saying you don't also (based on the barbarian comment above) but I have heard so many complaints about the grapple rules being ridiculous. Yeah, they require a little more rolling than standard attacks, but that's only on the initial grapple. I think it looked more complicated than other combat mechanics so most players avoid it, while it really only takes a little bit to understand them. This is an issue in my game where we have a stone giant Frenzied Berserker in the party. He wrecks stuff. A lot. Technically, he could probably take down Tarrasque by himself, since FB's don't die until frenzy ends (which is a long time for this stone giant).

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

And for those of you who still like DnD but hate 4th Ed, Piazo loves you so they've made Pathfinder.

Perhaps they do love you. But their love is misguided. If they truly loved you, they'd help you break out of this cycle of book-a-month addiction.

-- Alex

What book-a-month addiction? Sure I have 650 books (which all see regular use), but I don't switch book-by-book like you suggest.

This is the other reason why 4th edition came about: They ran out of book ideas for 3.5. Now they're re-releasing everything in 4th.

You've gotta admit that the Frostburn, Races of Stone, Complete blah blah books just kept cranking out, and most of them had about five pages of useful new mechanics with a ton of fluff around them. The first Complete books they did were fairly useful (Complete Warrior, Adventurer, etc. were good), but by the time Complete Scoundrel and Champion rolled out the door they were starting to get absurd.

 

[Chibz]

Wow. That was one of the better reviews of a tabletop game I've ever read. Kudos are in order.

I was actually debating whether or not to make the shift to v4 while I was in the comic book store the other day. (I was there looking for the next in the Y: The Last Man Series - I don't make a habit of loitering in those sorts of places.) I glanced the v4 core rule book box set. After some digging I found out it supposedly "simplified" the game.

I was intrigued, as I've often thought aspects of v3 were needlessly complicated. But, after your review, it seems that I'd be best sticking with v3. (I'm not springing for v3.5, either. I just homebrewize the house rules until they make sense, like v3.5 was supposed to do.)

Maybe I should just roll a d20 to decide, but my instincts are to stick with what I know. To hell with it. I'm DMing. As long as I know the full rules*, the players probably don't need to. Probably.


*By full rules, I mean everything except Mounted Combat. I'll never understand how the hell that's supposed to run.

Yeah, that's one bit my parties rarely bother with. Usually they all get some crazy speed enhancements and can easily outrun their horse/tiger/pony/giant frog anyway. I suppose if I ever decided to run a "knights" campaign I'd read up on mounted combat, but until then (or a meteor crashes through the roof and smashes the laptop, which is more likely) I'll just not bother with it.

I, personally, use the mounted combat system. The only class who, without magic items, can outrun someone on a warhorse would be the monk.

At low levels mounted combat makes the lance much more viable weapon.

Scouts can outrun a horse, no problem. I was referring more to my group's tendency to try and get/make items that eventually increase their speed to the point where having a horse slows them down.

Indeed, the lance can be a formidable weapon in the right situations, but I find that a standard dungeon crawl basically makes the fighter who chose to go the mounted combat route feel like he's wasted a feat or three. Most of my games are not really the type where men on horses charge across the plains.

Finally, a party of warforged make horses utterly pointless. They have no need to eat, sleep, or otherwise rest because they never become fatigued, so they can continue nonstop until they reach their destination.

Doesn't work for every campaign world, but it works in some (my own included). Then again I also built a barbarian who could grapple, trip, or just plain flay people. In fact, almost every combat option available.

Don't understand how people can call them useless.

It's interesting. You like using the mounted combat rules, where as I tend to use grappling rules a lot. I'm not saying you don't also (based on the barbarian comment above) but I have heard so many complaints about the grapple rules being ridiculous. Yeah, they require a little more rolling than standard attacks, but that's only on the initial grapple. I think it looked more complicated than other combat mechanics so most players avoid it, while it really only takes a little bit to understand them. This is an issue in my game where we have a stone giant Frenzied Berserker in the party. He wrecks stuff. A lot. Technically, he could probably take down Tarrasque by himself, since FB's don't die until frenzy ends (which is a long time for this stone giant).

Yeah, I love a lot of the rules people see as "needlessly complicated". Actually, the barbarian was based off of Kratos from the God of War series. He also uses poison, the DM used the rules for disease. We also wound up (once or twice) using the pregnancy rules from the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Alignment: Chaotic Angry.

How is one or two extra rolls (tops) all that complicated?

 

[PxDn Ninja]

I played 4e and personally didn't like it. It felt too video-gamey. They even refer to the classes as healer, tank and what not (maybe not specifically, but for the most part).

In 3.0/3.5 you felt like adventurers who, while being normal people, end up in an extrodinary situation and become heroes and legends. In 4e, it feels like you were born destined to be a demi god and what not. I don't feel like I'm playing my character, I'm just playing some random character.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

And for those of you who still like DnD but hate 4th Ed, Piazo loves you so they've made Pathfinder.

Perhaps they do love you. But their love is misguided. If they truly loved you, they'd help you break out of this cycle of book-a-month addiction.

-- Alex

Yes. Quality over quantity FTW.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

And for those of you who still like DnD but hate 4th Ed, Piazo loves you so they've made Pathfinder.

Perhaps they do love you. But their love is misguided. If they truly loved you, they'd help you break out of this cycle of book-a-month addiction.

-- Alex

Overall Pathfinder holds little interest for me, I usually play a homebrew version of Star Wars SAGA edition, HEX or Spirit of the Century.

Also Pathfinder is currently free.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Are we still on this? I thought we had this wrapped up?

People are still arguing 2ed vs 3ed.

Expect this to run for a while.