Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition: Initial Impressions

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I'm not a fan of 'level balancing' as you put it, Swanson. I think the classes in previous editions each had their role and it worked just great for my group. The 4e trend of making everyone able to attack and do essentially the same things has really turned me off, plus I really dislike the whole encounter/daily powers thing because many of them just don't have the right feel to me.

Everyone complains about Codzilla (in 3.x edition), and wizards being able to mop the floor with fighters at higher levels, but they're forgetting that the wizard is supposed to be blasting the dragon, not the fighter. The party is comprised of a variety of classes because they all have abilities that can complement each other nicely to achieve some epic goal or another. My admittedly limited experience with 4e has shown that a party can literally consist of one or two classes and still function about as well as a nice mixed party in the previous edition. There's a lot of things I could go on about, but really the main thing I dislike about 4e is how they changed the feel of things. The flavor has gone from intriguingly sweet and tangy to bland and cardboardy.

 

[Alex_P]

The flavor has gone from intriguingly sweet and tangy to bland and cardboardy.

I think that happened long before I was even born. Everybody started copying it and cribbing from it and D&D's fantasy mish-mash became the formula for generic fantasy instead. Nowadays it's possible to be sick of D&D's tropes before you even pick up the game for the first time, thanks to all the other places you see them.

-- Alex

 

[Chibz]

The flavor has gone from intriguingly sweet and tangy to bland and cardboardy.

I think that happened long before I was even born. Everybody started copying it and cribbing from it and D&D's fantasy mish-mash became the formula for generic fantasy instead. Nowadays it's possible to be sick of D&D's tropes before you even pick up the game for the first time, thanks to all the other places you see them.

-- Alex

Which is why you search outside of the common D&D tropes for inspiration for characters.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I'm not a fan of 'level balancing' as you put it, Swanson. I think the classes in previous editions each had their role and it worked just great for my group. The 4e trend of making everyone able to attack and do essentially the same things has really turned me off, plus I really dislike the whole encounter/daily powers thing because many of them just don't have the right feel to me.

Everyone complains about Codzilla (in 3.x edition), and wizards being able to mop the floor with fighters at higher levels, but they're forgetting that the wizard is supposed to be blasting the dragon, not the fighter. The party is comprised of a variety of classes because they all have abilities that can complement each other nicely to achieve some epic goal or another. My admittedly limited experience with 4e has shown that a party can literally consist of one or two classes and still function about as well as a nice mixed party in the previous edition. There's a lot of things I could go on about, but really the main thing I dislike about 4e is how they changed the feel of things. The flavor has gone from intriguingly sweet and tangy to bland and cardboardy.

I totally agree. That's why I stuck with my Tome of Battle. The Wizard will still outshine melee classes, just not as much anymore.

I've read through the ToB a bit and I think it's unnecessary. I found that fighters and other warrior types had plenty to do in my games, but that may be due more to my players being willing to try very...creative tactics in combat. Spellcasters can still level a field really quick, but they're glass cannons with only a few shots most of the time. I find they're best utilized as buffers and controllers as opposed to outright damage dealers (most of the time). If you're fighting monsters of the appropriate CR, then chances are good that they'll resist or take minimal damage from many spells you can sling at them. If a spell creates an effect that isn't a 'save or suck' type deal, then it's worth your time.

 

[Chibz]

I have absolutely no interest in playing 4th Edition. I only care about it from the perspective of design and knowing what the hell most of the kids jumping into the RPG hobby are going to be experiencing as their first game. I looked at material about it and was like, "Hmm, this is not for me. Okay, bye, 4th Edition!"

In contrast, I played 3rd Edition for many years. That's why I hate it so much. It talks a good game but fails to deliver. Fundamentally, it's the exact same kind of tactical game as 4th Edition with a lot more fiddly bits during character creation and a thin veneer of support for other stuff. Play is slow and uneven and the whole system creaks because it's been stuffed to the gills with really random, incoherently stuff from previous editions.

So, which is better: a game that I don't want to play or a game that I hated playing?

From a design standpoint, I'm disappointed in 4th Edition. People keep talking about how much it changed D&D 3, but I look at it and see the same mistakes. It looks like the system designers aimed to tighten up character creation and encounters and did both of those things, but left everything else the same -- sure, there may be different rules for the thing now, but the design principles are the same. The game looks like just as much of a time-eater as D&D 3 was, and its approach to the core thing of an RPG -- creating fun fiction together in play -- is just as stilted and handwavy.

Like 3rd Edition before it, 4th reinvents a lot of the easy stuff -- the stuff that every homebrewer fiddles with -- but leaves the real deepest-seated problems where they lie.

So, thumbs down for the exact opposite of why everyone else is hatin' on it.

-- Alex

I found that 4e was handled the same way 3.x was. The best I could muster was that they had made it to streamline combat and character creation. I didn't want to play it simply because of that, but my DM insisted. So, he picked it up and we jumped into. 'Lo and behold, the only difference was combat was easier to figure out and character creation took us a whole 5 minutes. We were still home brewing the same rules, still playing the same way, fighting the same monster, except Cambions of course whom resemble death metal bands, and having the same issues.
4e was a game that would have worked better as an expansion/rules fix labeled, "Stream lining combat/Level balancing".

If by "Streamlined" you mean "Completely changed the feel of", this statement could be true.

 

[Chibz]

I have absolutely no interest in playing 4th Edition. I only care about it from the perspective of design and knowing what the hell most of the kids jumping into the RPG hobby are going to be experiencing as their first game. I looked at material about it and was like, "Hmm, this is not for me. Okay, bye, 4th Edition!"

In contrast, I played 3rd Edition for many years. That's why I hate it so much. It talks a good game but fails to deliver. Fundamentally, it's the exact same kind of tactical game as 4th Edition with a lot more fiddly bits during character creation and a thin veneer of support for other stuff. Play is slow and uneven and the whole system creaks because it's been stuffed to the gills with really random, incoherently stuff from previous editions.

So, which is better: a game that I don't want to play or a game that I hated playing?

From a design standpoint, I'm disappointed in 4th Edition. People keep talking about how much it changed D&D 3, but I look at it and see the same mistakes. It looks like the system designers aimed to tighten up character creation and encounters and did both of those things, but left everything else the same -- sure, there may be different rules for the thing now, but the design principles are the same. The game looks like just as much of a time-eater as D&D 3 was, and its approach to the core thing of an RPG -- creating fun fiction together in play -- is just as stilted and handwavy.

Like 3rd Edition before it, 4th reinvents a lot of the easy stuff -- the stuff that every homebrewer fiddles with -- but leaves the real deepest-seated problems where they lie.

So, thumbs down for the exact opposite of why everyone else is hatin' on it.

-- Alex

I found that 4e was handled the same way 3.x was. The best I could muster was that they had made it to streamline combat and character creation. I didn't want to play it simply because of that, but my DM insisted. So, he picked it up and we jumped into. 'Lo and behold, the only difference was combat was easier to figure out and character creation took us a whole 5 minutes. We were still home brewing the same rules, still playing the same way, fighting the same monster, except Cambions of course whom resemble death metal bands, and having the same issues.
4e was a game that would have worked better as an expansion/rules fix labeled, "Stream lining combat/Level balancing".

If by "Streamlined" you mean "Completely changed the feel of", this statement could be true.

Streamlined meaning quicker and more fluid.

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

 

[McClaud]

I agree with most of your summary on why D&D isn't as fun as it used to be. And that it's fiddly.

But on the whole, I have two groups that want to play D&D and a third that plays something a lot more interesting, so I run those games. And I'm stuck DMing everything, because no one else has any organizational skills.

It's either that or not play at all. I'd rather have something to do on the weekends other than sit on PSN and try to play Killzone 2 (because right now KZ2 is a fucking mess).

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I started on Basic D&D. Anything that needs a codebook per character seems to me to be losing the idea of the original. This isn't Diablo 2, this is SPARTA!

d20 for iniative, d20 to hit, DM describes the splatter, that's all you need.

 

[McClaud]

There was nothing wrong with that, honestly, until there had to be like class books for the advanced classes featured in previous class books. Added diversity to the core classes was a welcome relief from Warrior, Cleric, Dwarf, Elf and Halfling of original D&D. But the class books for advanced classes? Absolutely retarded.

AD&D slipped in the later years into, "How can we just squeeze D&D fans for more money?"

 

[The Shade]

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.

 

[Chibz]

Streamlined is just another mindless buzz word.

A buzzword that they wouldn't have sold copies without.

Well, sure. That's the purpose of a buzzword: to appeal to the ignorant.

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.

It oversimplified the game. If you'd like an explanation on mounted combat, just ask via PM or other means.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Alex_P]

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

 

[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.