Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition: Initial Impressions

[BloodSquirrel]

My roommate and I are in agreement that the mechanics should never define who or even what your character is;

If you think that 4.0 lets mechanics define what your character is more than 3.5, then you have largely missed the point of roleplaying.

On the mechanics end, having fighters be fighters be fighters cleans up the rules, and in core 4.0 you've got FAR more viable options on how to build a versatile fighter than you did in core 3.5.

Meanwhile, your character doesn't need to take 10 different classes; if you want him to be a knight, he's a knight, and you just take the most appropriate powers. If you want him to be just an exceptionally talented thug, you can do that too. Paragon paths give you more options, and there are already more paragon paths in core 4.0 than there were prestige classes in 3.5. Splat books will add more powers, paths, and feats to let you customize him even more towards whatever concept you want, and it will wind up being far easier than 3.5.

 

[Axle_Gear]

I've been pretty iffy on 4.0. Maybe I need to look into everything a little more, but I only got through most of the rogue and cleric classes before I got frustrated over the complete lack of variety.

Almost every single one of the abilities a rogue has is based on dexterity, which essentinally means the direct measure of how good a rogue is is his dexterity score. Granted, not a lot of people play rogues with low dexterity scores, but in 3.5 there were ways of working around that to make a more truly thuggish, street-fighter kind of character.

And if we take a quick look at the races, I realized that variety is still quite lacking. We have human, dragonborne, dwarf, halfing, half-elf, elf, more-elf, and tiefling. Just from what little I've seen, half-elf, elf, more-elf, tiefling, and halfling are all essentially dexterity-based races. That's 5 out of 8 races! More than half! And the human could barely count as not being dexterity-based if a player opts to not give their bonus to dexterity.

Also, the new basic races force the DM's to accept certain cosmologies into every campaign they make, since dragonborne and tieflings can't exists without demons/devils and dragons regularly popping into the mortal world to screw humans. I sort of liked the previous base races for their more 'vanilla' flavor. The uniqueness of the game came from the creativity of its players.

Maybe I still need to read through the books more, but all in all it seems the only way to make a character more effective at what they do is to increase one stat and level up. And the small list of abilities every class has means that if you've played one or two of a kind, you've nearly played them all. If the supplemental rules allow for a little more choice, I might get into it, but until then I would prefer to stick to 3.5 and house rules.

 

[LewsTherin]

I think the big thing that people miss when they read a D&D rule book, is that you CAN in fact, just look at a rule, think *bother* this *nonsense* and disregard it, or replace it, or mess with it, or bake it a cake. THAT is the true beauty of the Tabletop P&P RPG, the DM decides how things work, and the DM, not the rulebook, runs the game. If you aren't taking full advantage of this, YOU AREN'T DOING IT RIGHT!

Dungeons and Dragons is not like WoW, nor should it be. I personally don't like 4th Ed, simply because it seems to be placing to much emphasis on the * lulz, ur an epic! Go kilzz some mobz lulz* mentality that permeates most MMOS. I think this just might be Wizard's trying to cash in on the current WoW/MMO fad, but I sincerely hope not. What originally caught me on this that suddenly, EVERYONE can be a paladin, and the stat requirements for said class were drastically lowered. The whole idea of the exclusiveness of the class was to increase its value, and to reflect the rigours of such a lifestyle. It is just fairly anticlimactic if suddenly everyone and their grandmother can take up a sword/staff/bow/guisarme-voulge+4 and go forth and become a demigod/tyrant/lvl 1000 invincible avatar of the flaming god of chaos and blueberry pudding and go kill gods/devils/Bahamut/Illidan.

Me and my friends are putting a game together, and they have asked me to start up the DM'ing. I am fairly certain that we won't be using 4th.

 

[Mykail.Morrier]

I've been playing 2ed Dnd for quite a while now, even after 3ed came out. Honestly, even with friends who played 3.5 regularly, I always felt like a complete pillock every damn time I had to make a character for one of those games. It had a lot of variety, but that gigantic level of choice(especially in Feats) was rather intimidating to new players; it was as if a group of kids was getting to go to a swimming pool for the first time, only suddenly the pool is a lake and they're thrown into the middle of it with an encouraging fellow who's only advice was "Don't drown!"

That and I can't say how crippling it is to a session's playtime for a whole party to make their characters. This can take from two to four hours alone, as everyone has this nagging feeling that the feats they chose were crippling in some way, or useless later on. I honestly just could not get enough enthusiasm for this 'level of freedom' and honestly just went through the motions with 3.5 until we all gravitated back to 2ed House Rules.

Then, something awesome happened; 4ed came out, which I managed to find here, overseas. Skeptical as I was after 3.5, I was very impressed. Intuitive is the best word I can use to describe it; everything just feels like common sense. To be a character that feels useful to the party, I no longer have to 'Red Mage' through the splat books for rule loopholes and the like. The Min/Maxing that turned me away from 3.5 is not here; sure, it's a little more linear on creation, but I don't always have this sense of dread that I'm screwing up by choosing the wrong things. It feels like no matter what I chose, it was right.

I know some people don't like the 'limited' race selection, but I must be honest here; how often do you see a party member that isn't a Human, Elf, Half-Elf, Dwarf, or Hafling? Honestly, the only Gnomes I've ever encountered(two) was a walking joke and evoker and a walking racial slur/rape machine. Dragonborne and Tiefling being included in the PHB was nice of them, but it makes me frown when people say that they feel they HAVE to allow them to be playable; why?

If I don't like something, or find something that doesn't fit a campaign I'm writing, I come out and say "Yeah, no furries, alright?" and all is well. Actually, I always say no furries, but that's not the point here; if you don't like something, house rule it away, Mr. Dungeon Master.

Yet another gripe is the Destinies. As a Dungeon Master, it has always been my goal to find out what the player's true intentions and desires are, and tailor my adventures to include these things, and even lead to them towards the end. These Epic Destinies are just a way of stream lining this process, making my job easier; now I have classifcations and guides on how to get them there. I heard someone earlier complain that at level 30, the character goes poof and becomes a God... yet again, only if you, the DM, say so.

I'd probably reward a party that got to level 30 with a few God Awesome adventures; after all, can you imagine the world shattering impact of them facing off against some nameless and timeless evil in one of the last great battles of good/not aligned/not totally jerks vs Unquestionably Vile?

In closing, 4ed fits me like a glove, and I hate Mumorpuggers for the most part. It's the most user friendly PnP roleplay system I've ever played in, no one's character feels useless or inadequate when we play, and it's given me the inspiration to write a campaign for the first time in almost a year.

EDIT: On Racial Limitations on Classes
Oh for God's sake, did anyone really limit class selection due to Race? Talk about putting the rules against roleplaying! Only humans and elves were 'good enough' to be Paladins? Please, we always just thought that was a rule for... well, racists

 

[LewsTherin]

EDIT: On Racial Limitations on Classes
Oh for God's sake, did anyone really limit class selection due to Race? Talk about putting the rules against roleplaying! Only humans and elves were 'good enough' to be Paladins? Please, we always just thought that was a rule for... well, racists

No, just humans. It fitted the lore best. Dwarves didn't have the right CHA, and elves had too low Con/Str. But again, what the DM says, goes.

*EDIT* But I was only using that as an example, did you REALLY let people do things like have Gnome Druids or Dwarf Rangers? Some races are just unsuited to the class.

 

[Hawgh]

I recently acquired these much coveted 4th edition sourcebooks, and I was wondering if one of you fellas who've managed to gather some experience with the system could answer a question;

From what I see in the phb and according to what I've read on messageboards and the like, it seems that Wizards are being rather aggressive when it comes to the use of miniatures.

I, for one, doesn't own a single one, neither does anyone in my playing circle (unless you counter their Warhammer habengut). So I was wondering whether this absence of miniatures will be detrimental, irrelevant or downright crippling.

Opinions would be much appreciated.

 

[Takatchi]

I recently acquired these much coveted 4th edition sourcebooks, and I was wondering if one of you fellas who've managed to gather some experience with the system could answer a question;

From what I see in the phb and according to what I've read on messageboards and the like, it seems that Wizards are being rather aggressive when it comes to the use of miniatures.

I, for one, doesn't own a single one, neither does anyone in my playing circle (unless you counter their Warhammer habengut). So I was wondering whether this absence of miniatures will be detrimental, irrelevant or downright crippling.

Opinions would be much appreciated.

Well, just like in the latter days of 3.5 edition and also in the Star Wars Saga Edition, grid-based maps and minis DO help, but for the imaginative group all you have to do is keep the movement rate conversions easily at-hand. 4E refers to movement and ranges in "squares," but so long as you remember that 1 square = 5 feet in Dungeons and Dragons, you should be able to convert on the fly and describe scenes to your group with accuracy. This is a bit of a turn from previous editions stating that "5 feet = 1 square," because 4E is geared toward selling a lot of minis and grid-based tactical combat.

I've never owned anything but a dry erase board that I used to draw out complex battle scenes or large, open areas such as towns. Never used a grid-based map in my life, and I've never had an issue.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I recently acquired these much coveted 4th edition sourcebooks, and I was wondering if one of you fellas who've managed to gather some experience with the system could answer a question;

From what I see in the phb and according to what I've read on messageboards and the like, it seems that Wizards are being rather aggressive when it comes to the use of miniatures.

I, for one, doesn't own a single one, neither does anyone in my playing circle (unless you counter their Warhammer habengut). So I was wondering whether this absence of miniatures will be detrimental, irrelevant or downright crippling.

Opinions would be much appreciated.

Having a grid to use really does help out combat. You don't need to go out and spend $200 on minis, though. Just get some posterboard, draw a grid on it, grab some pennies, tape some paper with letters/symbols around them to use as characters, and you're good to go.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Wow, you basically captured my opinion of 4e to a word. I also wanted a "SAGA edition" hybrid instead of what we got. Oh well, I've discovered Exile Games "Hollow Earth Expedition" which is the best thing ever... period, so I've got my RPG's handled for the near future.

 

[Chibz]

If you guys need me, I'll be launching myself into "Pathfinder". It's just D&D3.5 with some badly needed adjustments to certain classes and races (Half-orc more than ANYTHING needed fixed!!) Of course, they didn't move any steps forward in fourth.

Pathfinder is what I wish D&D 4.0 was. A logical set of changes that didn't render my library of 650 odd sources magically irrelevant.

And yes, in order to use almost any newly published resource by wizards of the coast... I'd need to be using fourth edition.

 

[Alex_P]

Your character can literally choose a destiny as he approaches level 30, and this "destiny" gives you obvious mechanical perks. For instance, if you pick "Demigod" for your character's destiny, you gain superpowers as you near level 30. At level 30, your character immediately poofs and becomes some entity to be worshiped on the Plane of Gods. I wish I were making this up, but the rulebook literally says that as soon as you hit level 30 and complete your "destiny quest," you hand over your character sheet and the game is over. That's it. The adventure ends, time to roll up level 1 characters and go on another one. Pardon me for feeling a bit railroaded, but isn't this what happens in the end of every Final Fantasy game? You save the world, become the world's most badass swordfighter, and learn to summon monsters that can eradicate the solar system, then you retire to serving tea in a quaint shop somewhere in BFE. That's what this is, and it's literally written into the rules.

Well no, you save the world, become the world's most badass swordfighter, learn to summon monsters that can eradicate the solar system, and then you... become a god! Because that is what you already are, you badass-swordfighting solar-system-eradicating hero you!

Sounds like your story is done, doesn't? At least the kind of story you can meaningfully explore with a D&D-style system that has you collecting magic items and making attack and damage rolls and counting up how many times you can do something per day. (Have you seen the various editions' attempts at Deities & Demigods? Yeesh!)

They're certainly not the masterpiece of formal end-of-game mechanics that you see in Polaris or The Shadow of Yesterday, but I think "destinies" are at least workable. They give you a clear way to wrap up the game when you fall off the end of the level track. If this feels railroady and constricted, maybe it's the whole damn concept of levels rather than the "destines" which are truly to blame?

-- Alex

 

[Aramax]

Some of you guys sure love to talk a lot... O_O

I didn't read everything on this topic ( Not enough free time for that ) but I think I know what you guys are talking about.

Tabletop gaming is not dead yet. When you look at wizards of the coast weak attempt at creating a virtual tabletop game to play online (D&D Insider) you know that it will take some time for anyone to come up with something decent.

Playing with the old pen and paper tabletop sytem is still better today... can't wait for a real online virtual tabletop game to be released tho.

In the maintime you should try Squares and blades. It's free.

http://www.thunderbird.cz/gms/squaresandblades/
http://www.thunderbird.cz/gms/sb2/

Enjoy.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

As a system 4.0 looks really good but what I HATE is how they munchkinified it. Now I know this is necessary to get new, fresh blood into it, but they cut out Halforcs and replaced them with...dragon people.

I want to play a green, screaming, product of rape damnit!

And do not even get me STARTED on the emo tieflings who are the product of an ancient empire long crumb- Wait? Isn't that the backstory of the Dragon people too?

IT IS! You can't have TWO races be the final homages of an ancient, decadent, crumbled empire! Wargh!

Anyway the munchkin races are pretty much all that pissed me off. On the upside, when they inevitably make a 4.0 videogame, I hope they make it like NWN so I can finally get a real goddamn sequel.

 

[McClaud]

I think I began to like it when I started limiting giving players experience for every successful action they completed (as in, I don't give you XP for every successful action - I determine if it's important and I may say NO). I also cut out rituals since I hate how that entire part of the game works (TAKE A LOOK, IT'S IN A BOOK, READING RITUALLLLS LOL).

My players moaned at first, but now when we play, we all agree that leveling up slower, and getting rewards as designated by the GM for particularly good roleplaying coupled with specific successful actions at the end of the adventure is so much more satisfying.

I also require a majority of social interaction to be role-played, and not just rolled for. So it made the players go read some actual fantasy books to see learn how to do so. And that actually made the game that more immersive and exciting.

 

[Alex_P]

IT IS! You can't have TWO races be the final homages of an ancient, decadent, crumbled empire! Wargh!

In a typical fantasy setting, pretty much all of the races are the descendants of ancient and decadent fallen empires. Humans included.

-- Alex

 

[Chibz]

Yeah. They completely gave up on half-orcs, replacing them with a lamer race. Then, during my stint as the elf-obsessed person I almost threw up in rage when I saw how THAT race was violated. Oh, and tieflings. Halflings, too. Goblins and kobolds, even more of cannon-fodder now. 1 HP goblins; fucking nice move there wizards.

Now die in a fire, while I laugh.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

 

[Rational-Delirium]

I've dabbled a bit with both 3.5, and was interested when 4.0 came out, but my main problem is that I don't really have a D&Ding party right now, so my experience is rather limited. But I did notice some differences. As a rouge, I really, really REALLY like all the new stuff I get in this new version, but at the same time I wasn't impressed with the other classes. Cleric, and Paladin for example both have variations on 'heal a person with a blinding light' spell.

But when it comes to rules, we don't really... erm... follow them. It's more of a 'hey, we like that rule, it makes sense' type of scenario. Presently we're playing out of 2.0, 3.5 and 4.0 at the same time, like time itself has collapsed and is in a giant heap on our decrepit green table.

 

[Wargamer]

I don't think I could stand 4th Edition, I really don't.

Everything I've heard about it seems to go totally the opposite direction to how I want D&D to go.

Whenever I play D&D, we usually use all four Core books, plus the four original "Complete" Books (Adventurer, Arcane, Divine, Warrior), plus the Psionic Handbook and Complete Psionic if people want psykers. Most of the NPCs we run into will be fairly normal, maybe getting a few PHB Class Levels, but we players get to be far more awesome.

I really hate this notion of turning D&D into a WoW clone. Yeah, I guess I could turn Tonberry Feye from the acrobatic lunatic into the sneaky back-stabber, but the idea he can only backstab once every ten minutes? Compare to 3.5, if you will, where he has fought off two opponents at once whilst lying on his back, on top of a table, only to Kip-Up and swing on a chandelier to rejoin the rest of his party on the far side of the room.

D&D's charm over videogames is the sheer scope of what is possible. That doesn't just mean you get to act the prat and declare you're sexually assaulting the barmaid, it means that if you don't want to play a generic class, you don't have to. I quite enjoy fielding a Barbarian, and he's a pretty typical Barbarian, but when I'm in the mood for something odd it's nice to break out the Catfolk Samurai, or the Ninja / Dread Pirate combo (much to the groans of everyone else at the table).

Turning D&D into "Tabletop WoW" is a terrible idea.

 

[Chibz]

I don't think I could stand 4th Edition, I really don't.

Everything I've heard about it seems to go totally the opposite direction to how I want D&D to go.

Whenever I play D&D, we usually use all four Core books, plus the four original "Complete" Books (Adventurer, Arcane, Divine, Warrior), plus the Psionic Handbook and Complete Psionic if people want psykers. Most of the NPCs we run into will be fairly normal, maybe getting a few PHB Class Levels, but we players get to be far more awesome.

I really hate this notion of turning D&D into a WoW clone. Yeah, I guess I could turn Tonberry Feye from the acrobatic lunatic into the sneaky back-stabber, but the idea he can only backstab once every ten minutes? Compare to 3.5, if you will, where he has fought off two opponents at once whilst lying on his back, on top of a table, only to Kip-Up and swing on a chandelier to rejoin the rest of his party on the far side of the room.

D&D's charm over videogames is the sheer scope of what is possible. That doesn't just mean you get to act the prat and declare you're sexually assaulting the barmaid, it means that if you don't want to play a generic class, you don't have to. I quite enjoy fielding a Barbarian, and he's a pretty typical Barbarian, but when I'm in the mood for something odd it's nice to break out the Catfolk Samurai, or the Ninja / Dread Pirate combo (much to the groans of everyone else at the table).

Turning D&D into "Tabletop WoW" is a terrible idea.

Well, it seems that they looked at WoW's profitability, and decided to try to copy that for themselves. Yeah. They sold the hobby, and thus everyone who enjoys it out for a quick buck.

Then again, it's WOTC. Nothing new there.