A 4th edition D n D? thats a terrible Idea. like if they made a sequel to the never ending story. its A good idea nobody was that idiotic. ((walks off whistling into the sunlight, happily oblivious))
Poll: Dungeons and Dragons 4th EDon'tion
- Thread starter Lyri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Heh. Those of you complaining about fourth now would have been(or were) complaining about 3rd when it came out too. Personally I think it's a mix of some good and bad, hopefully it gets more people into the game. If it feels like WoW you're doing it wrong, or for the wrong reasons either way I suspect it says more about you than either game. What's important is that you are free to play whichever version you see fit. There are still plenty of groups who don't see any reason to give up the old ways, and more power to them.
As a longtime DM, my word is Law. I speak only the gospel of truth.
Edit: For those saying that the system eliminates roleplaying, You yourself are deciding what level of roleplaying and interaction is going on, and should your dm be on his or her toes, you should be able to have just an intricate and rewarding experience in that respect.
As a longtime DM, my word is Law. I speak only the gospel of truth.
Edit: For those saying that the system eliminates roleplaying, You yourself are deciding what level of roleplaying and interaction is going on, and should your dm be on his or her toes, you should be able to have just an intricate and rewarding experience in that respect.
Zoutou said:
While I think that 4th Edition does have its merits and places it falls short, I feel neither of your arguments are valid. Time balance between combat and story is entirely on the shoulders of the DM and players. You could run a story heavy 4th edition game, just as much as you could run a combat heavy 3rd.NoSlottedToaster said:
If your going to have problems with a specific rule set at least come up with some arguments that have some backing to them.
I don't know what game you were playing all this time but 3.5 DID NOT make any special clemencies towards Roleplaying. In fact "Roleplaying" support is something DnD has been failing at since it's inception.NoSlottedToaster said:
A game with good "roleplaying" support is one that can translate Back Story, Character Motivation and Character Personality into Rewarding Gameplay. The game I've seen that does this best is Spirit of The Century from Evil Hat productions which uses the FATE engine for it's gameplay, a large portion of which involves invoking various aspects of your character personality/back story in order to aid you in completing your adventure and this is primarily a system devoted to fast and furious Pulp Action with very little regard for any sort of number crunching.
The "talk" that a lot of people like about 3.5 usually isn't any sort of roleplaying, it revolves around Magic Item Usage and Strategy, talking more about the upcoming battle than actually engaging in it.
At least this is my opinion regarding 3.5.
I want to get into DnD but i don't know anybody who does it ;-;
From what i've heard though 4 is better than 3.5
From what i've heard though 4 is better than 3.5
I dunno I got 4 edition and all my D&D playing friends tell me that 3.5 is better. What I think?
There is more shit in 3.5 (way more), but the 4e rules are more refined.
There is more shit in 3.5 (way more), but the 4e rules are more refined.
Yeah, fourth ed is fun for about five minutes. that's how long it takes to make all of the available kinds of character and realize that the combat is boring as hell, and that the skill system might as well not exist for all that it matters. There's more to a good game than combat and talking, good skill challenges bring a lot to a well thought-out campaign, and there's just not enough in 4th to do them properly. Yeah, 4th is good if you wanna make stuff up on the fly and not have to do any work as a DM, but it sucks if you're putting actual effort into it. 4th creates very mediocre adventures; it's herder to suck at DMing 4th, but it's harder to do it well, too.
I enjoy 4th edition. It's nice to have classes that are somewhat balanced. If you want hardcore proof of the lack of balance in 3.5, take a look at the Druid (my class of choice). They can slow enemies with magic, deal damage with magic, heal with magic, attack with a weapon, attack with an animal companion, or attack as an animal in wild shape. With the right feats they can cast all of those spells AND use wild shape to melee. I like 4th edition simply because each class has some kind of role in the group. And as people have said before, it's all about what your group does. We have sessions that last for 4 hours, of which 2 hours are nothing but role-playing. If you're pissy about the "role-playing spells" being turned into rituals, make a house rule to lower casting time. The rules in the books are a guideline and aren't set in stone.
EDIT:
EDIT:
No no. Wizards of the Coast creates very mediocre adventures. My group played a whopping two of the pre-construct campaigns for 4th before we gave them up. Why? It was the same thing. Talk circles around a town, find a dungeon, crawl said dungeon, rinse, repeat. However, we are currently playing a human made campaign that is going very well and has actual role-playing and skill checks. It is all in how good the DM/GM is at running and making a campaign.velcthulhu said:
Disagree, I found that the looser mechanics made it far, far easier for me to create interesting and unique traps and challenges, ones that requires coordination, teamwork, communication and creative thinking rather than "Well, i've got a +26 to the skill check, what's the DC?"velcthulhu said:
When there's rules for everything, people end up role-playing nothing, just rolling d20s, adding some obscene number to it, then rolling again if I say "Nope".
Now that my players can't just "make a bluff check" they actually have to speak out their dialog.
Now that they can't just "Make a diplomacy check" they have to formulate and speak a persuasive argument.
Now that they can't just "Check for traps (or invisible) traps) they have to purchase 10ft poles, and top the stones ahead of them to ensure the floor isn't going to fall away, or spikes won't shoot out of the walls.
The death of the old skill system really liberated me as a DM. We pretty much ignore it now. Essentially, it exists to give trained character's players a chance to know something their character probably would, from my mouth, i.e. "You're train in religious lore, so you know that the symbol on the ground is of the cult of the demon Gkrakkdjul" or "From your studies of botany, you know the vines entwined around the skeleton are that of the Mgoldi creeper, said only to sprout from the blood-soaked fields of great battles".
They now enrich and add to the game (if only slightly) while the players actually have to do something aside from rolling dice.
Edit:
Actually, I've run through the first WotC made adventure, and found it to be quite enjoyable. Sure, it's not terribly innovative, and it's filled with cliches, but the Talk around town/crawl/repeat cycle is more a lack of player imagination (or DM's permissibility) than WotC's failings.WinkyTheGreat said:
Role Playing games are a contract between the players, and the DM. The player's agreement is simple "We're here to have fun, we'll follow your silly rules, we'll suspend our disbelief as long as you let us have fun" and the DM's contract is "I'm here so we all have fun, I'll impose silly rules, but let you get around them for fun, and I will, to the best of my ability, create a world you can believe in"
Pre-mades always fail when either the DM isn't flexible (let players get around rules) or the players don't innovate (attempt to have fun). WotC designs adventures in a linear "Track" system, and they're greatly improved by breaking from the track. Let your players do things in the order they want, for the reasons they want, don't shove the linear crawl down their throats, and you'll have a much better time.
Example, in the pre-made (Keep on the Shadowfell? I think?) there was a NPC in a tavern who was a spy for some big bad, but you weren't really supposed to notice/find out until after your 3rd crawl cycle or so. One of my more... creative... players took great interest in this NPC as he noticed it was the only member of the same race, and opposite gender, in the town, he ended up accidentally leading the party, in the middle of the night, into the 3rd or 4th dungeon segment (Where ass was royally handed)forcing a retreat by the party, much speculation, development of tactics, return, and other-way ass whooping.
Yeah, my player's made a campaign better by skipping a significant portion of it.
Was that a failing of WotC? of me as a DM? of the players? Not at all. WotC gave us a setting, a few groups and individuals in conflict, and the players stumbled their way through it, chanced upon big bad in a Scooby-Do manner (Not my fault, I swear!) Had to retreat several times, and royally destroyed the "Train Track" But, fortunately, the motivations were detailed well enough (even if they were rather painfully 2d) that it was made easy to adapt, and move things around such that the players ended up facing most of the encounters eventually anyway, stopped the big bad, saved the day, and had a great time of it.
If you, as a DM, aren't permissive enough, the players will "Shut off" and just follow the train-tracks to the eventual destination. Once your players stop trying to "break the mold" you've lost their interest and it takes a really, really spectacular story to keep them awake and engaged.
Ultimately, this flexibility is why people still play Table Tops instead of the visually stunning VGs out there, Table Top offers a level of personal freedom that games may well never match, once that's gone, they might as well just play Final Fantasy...
I'll play 4.0 if there's no 3.5 going, but I won't enjoy it anywhere near as much.
I just find giving everyone powers has the wrong feel to it. The difference between the magic (of spells), the training (of feats) and the lifestyle (of class features) was an important part of the character's feel to me, and 4.0 has just killed that of completely.
I'm not too fond of the way 4.0 monsters are done either. I don't like how each critter is designed as an essentailly separate set of stats with just a keyword in common with their fellows rather than creating a character of the appropriate monster race (the "those goblins have class levels" reaction is often fun).
The changes in the way cross-classing works and the way classes have been shoe-horned into specific roles means that coming up with a character concept that I alctually want to play is a lot harder than it was for 3.5, particularly as the lack of skill points means I can't put a few ranks in something that's in-character but not much use in the average skill challenge.
Part of my dislike is the fairly petty fact that none of my old house rules that I've built my most successful games around work in 4.0.
To those who say 3.5 was broken, I say that no rpg is 100% broken unless the DM is letting it be broken.
I just find giving everyone powers has the wrong feel to it. The difference between the magic (of spells), the training (of feats) and the lifestyle (of class features) was an important part of the character's feel to me, and 4.0 has just killed that of completely.
I'm not too fond of the way 4.0 monsters are done either. I don't like how each critter is designed as an essentailly separate set of stats with just a keyword in common with their fellows rather than creating a character of the appropriate monster race (the "those goblins have class levels" reaction is often fun).
The changes in the way cross-classing works and the way classes have been shoe-horned into specific roles means that coming up with a character concept that I alctually want to play is a lot harder than it was for 3.5, particularly as the lack of skill points means I can't put a few ranks in something that's in-character but not much use in the average skill challenge.
Part of my dislike is the fairly petty fact that none of my old house rules that I've built my most successful games around work in 4.0.
To those who say 3.5 was broken, I say that no rpg is 100% broken unless the DM is letting it be broken.
