Poll: Dungeons and Dragons 4th EDon'tion

[Laura.]

I'm actually playin a DnD 4E campaign, and I have to say I am enjoying it a lot. It's NOT WoW at all. Combat feels like a wargame, which is ok since rules are very clear, tactics are very important, and a single combat doesn't last 3 hours.
People who say there's no room for roleplaying are wrong, I'm playing a Doppelganger Bard and believe me, I've roleplayed a lot.

What's also great about this edition is the limit they put into the system so as not to allow extreme powergaming. In 3.5 you could grab 1 barbarian lv, 2 fighter lvs, 2 duskblade lvs, 1 abjurant champion lv, 7 frenzied berserker lvs, etc. and build an unstoppable killing machine (it's an example, don't go "my build is better"), whereas in DnD 4E your options are limited to characters that make sense and don't grant extreme power.

I think many people are pissed because of this, being used to having overpowered characters just because they knew how to put them together, and now that kind of thing is heavily downplayed.

Also: in 4E you don't need an hour to level up.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Neither edition is "better" than the other, they just cater to different styles of play and tastes. 4th ed. is fairly easy to pick up and play out of the box, and it did simplify some of the DM's work.

However, I personally think it has tried too hard to equalize all the character classes. Everyone can always do something in every situation now, and I prefer to have the wizard who has run out of spells be very afraid of getting munched. This is no longe the case, since wizards have at-will powers they can use an unlimited number of times. I liked it more when each class has a specific niche they fill within the party, as I think it makes for some fun situations.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

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.

You've perfectly summarized a lot of my feelings about 4th edition and 3.x edition. Having all the classes just gain 'powers' with very little differentiation about the source of said power is a big lack of flavor for me. I'm also not a fan of the fact that monsters obey different rules than players now. While I understand that they, the players, will never really have to know that, I like the fact that monsters in 3.x are built much the same way as a character with class levels and feats. Skill points need to return, as far as I'm concerned. You can't give your character a couple ranks in a random skill anymore, and that was one of the best ways to reflect an unusual training/upbringing in 3.x.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Then don't play anymore?

-Advice costs 5 bucks. Cash or check

 

[Warwolt]

"they both suck and you suck more for asking"

But I'm sort of an indie player anyway.

 

[Alex_P]

I don't think the old mechanics did anything to make the magic-using meaningfully magical, because D&D magic is about as ominous and mystical as a hand grenade. So, I don't think slapping D&D's magic rules onto other types of abilities really waters down their "magical" feel -- there's pretty much none of speak of in the first place. Expanding "dailies" to more classes instead of getting rid of them is a pretty big mistake, though.

...

"they both suck and you suck more for asking"

But I'm sort of an indie player anyway.

Let's clarify that a bit.

Enjoying D&D is a bit like enjoying Star Trek. People will make fun of you for it if D&D / Star Trek is your only exposure to science fiction. Still, Star Trek is not entirely without merit and some people with sophisticated knowledge of science fiction still like Star Trek, and even the many who don't tend to acknowledge its influence on the culture of science fiction.

So, there's nothing inherently wrong about simply enjoying Star Trek.

Being the guy who argues about which Star Trek is better on Internet forums, though...

-- Alex

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I don't think the old mechanics did anything to make the magic-using meaningfully magical, because D&D magic is about as ominous and mystical as a hand grenade. So, I don't think slapping D&D's magic rules onto other types of abilities really waters down their "magical" feel -- there's pretty much none of speak of in the first place. Expanding "dailies" to more classes instead of getting rid of them is a pretty big mistake, though.

...

"they both suck and you suck more for asking"

But I'm sort of an indie player anyway.

Let's clarify that a bit.

Enjoying D&D is a bit like enjoying Star Trek. People will make fun of you for it if D&D / Star Trek is your only exposure to science fiction. Still, Star Trek is not entirely without merit and some people with sophisticated knowledge of science fiction still like Star Trek, and even the many who don't tend to acknowledge its influence on the culture of science fiction.

So, there's nothing inherently wrong about simply enjoying Star Trek.

Being the guy who argues about which Star Trek is better on Internet forums, though...

-- Alex

Next Generation...

 

[theultimateend]

I quite like 4th Edition - 3.5 was completely broken (apparently) and I prefer to spend hours killing things and having fun than spending hours just talking and not having fun.

my point, all the talking is what made it role playing and all the killing is what makes it a WoW on paper, granted a good game should have equal amounts of each

Yes because DnD 4th edition forces you to do nothing but combat.

Or wait...maybe it streamlines combat so that you don't have to be hung up checking the rule book every 6 seconds so you can actually RP.

I've not seen it done poorly yet and I've been around DnD for ages which tells me it is more people's inability to evolve and use a product properly than the product itself.

I'm actually playin a DnD 4E campaign, and I have to say I am enjoying it a lot. It's NOT WoW at all. Combat feels like a wargame, which is ok since rules are very clear, tactics are very important, and a single combat doesn't last 3 hours.
People who say there's no room for roleplaying are wrong, I'm playing a Doppelganger Bard and believe me, I've roleplayed a lot.

What's also great about this edition is the limit they put into the system so as not to allow extreme powergaming. In 3.5 you could grab 1 barbarian lv, 2 fighter lvs, 2 duskblade lvs, 1 abjurant champion lv, 7 frenzied berserker lvs, etc. and build an unstoppable killing machine (it's an example, don't go "my build is better"), whereas in DnD 4E your options are limited to characters that make sense and don't grant extreme power.

I think many people are pissed because of this, being used to having overpowered characters just because they knew how to put them together, and now that kind of thing is heavily downplayed.

Also: in 4E you don't need an hour to level up.

Yeah I found that 3.5 was far easier to 'break'. You could really do some extreme stuff that made combat unwieldy and for everyone but the 'god char' unfun.

However! Given the chance I'll play either edition.

 

[Altorin]

Neither edition is "better" than the other, they just cater to different styles of play and tastes. 4th ed. is fairly easy to pick up and play out of the box, and it did simplify some of the DM's work.

However, I personally think it has tried too hard to equalize all the character classes. Everyone can always do something in every situation now, and I prefer to have the wizard who has run out of spells be very afraid of getting munched. This is no longe the case, since wizards have at-will powers they can use an unlimited number of times. I liked it more when each class has a specific niche they fill within the party, as I think it makes for some fun situations.

I really don't know how "Low Level Mage runs out of spells and is fucked until the group decides to rest" is a good thing. The at will powers are not much more then special crossbow/sling attacks that use the wizard's basic stats of intelligence instead of relying on dexterity, and also allow them to focus on using a single implement to upgrade via magic rather then requiring a magic crossbow/sling that is only used in those Oh Shit moments

For Wizards, the Daily/Encounter spells are the ones that are interesting, and they act very much like the old style, requiring you to choose the right ones to use, and if you run out, you're just stuck with your At-Will powers.. which, like I said, are basically just basic attacks using Intelligence and a magical implement that can be used for your other spells, rather then a crossbow/sling that can only be used for those last ditch "OMG OUT OF SPELLS" situations.

SERIOUSLY

has anyone actually read the rulebooks?

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Neither edition is "better" than the other, they just cater to different styles of play and tastes. 4th ed. is fairly easy to pick up and play out of the box, and it did simplify some of the DM's work.

However, I personally think it has tried too hard to equalize all the character classes. Everyone can always do something in every situation now, and I prefer to have the wizard who has run out of spells be very afraid of getting munched. This is no longer the case, since wizards have at-will powers they can use an unlimited number of times. I liked it more when each class has a specific niche they fill within the party, as I think it makes for some fun situations.

I really don't know how "Low Level Mage runs out of spells and is fucked until the group decides to rest" is a good thing. The at will powers are not much more then special crossbow/sling attacks that use the wizard's basic stats of intelligence instead of relying on dexterity, and also allow them to focus on using a single implement to upgrade via magic rather then requiring a magic crossbow/sling that is only used in those Oh Shit moments

For Wizards, the Daily/Encounter spells are the ones that are interesting, and they act very much like the old style, requiring you to choose the right ones to use, and if you run out, you're just stuck with your At-Will powers.. which, like I said, are basically just basic attacks using Intelligence and a magical implement that can be used for your other spells, rather then a crossbow/sling that can only be used for those last ditch "OMG OUT OF SPELLS" situations.

SERIOUSLY

has anyone actually read the rulebooks?

Yes, I have read through the rules, and I find the simplification of the mechanics (i.e. the wizard's abilities only hinging on one ability score) to be boring. I like the feeling of desperation, drama, tension, etc. that arises when you start to realize that you're running out of spells. Yes, it does mean a wizard or whoever that runs out of spells early in a big encounter is kind of hosed for the rest of said encounter, but I like the idea of limits to the amount of magic a mortal can channel in a given day. Manipulating the fabric of reality is a hard thing to do.

On a note related, somewhat, to wizard at-wills is the fact that they've decided to call fighter and other melee class abilities 'powers' and divided them up into dailies/encounter/at-wills as well. In 3.x a fighter gets tons of feats, and all these feats are usable whenever the fighter wants, or provide static bonuses to saves, attacks, etc. Renaming them 'powers' kind of takes away some of the flavor I liked. I realize I can reflavor them however I want, but I think they tried to fix something that wasn't necessarily broke. They also kept feats, but made them different from the powers, which I find a little odd.

 

[Altorin]

Neither edition is "better" than the other, they just cater to different styles of play and tastes. 4th ed. is fairly easy to pick up and play out of the box, and it did simplify some of the DM's work.

However, I personally think it has tried too hard to equalize all the character classes. Everyone can always do something in every situation now, and I prefer to have the wizard who has run out of spells be very afraid of getting munched. This is no longer the case, since wizards have at-will powers they can use an unlimited number of times. I liked it more when each class has a specific niche they fill within the party, as I think it makes for some fun situations.

I really don't know how "Low Level Mage runs out of spells and is fucked until the group decides to rest" is a good thing. The at will powers are not much more then special crossbow/sling attacks that use the wizard's basic stats of intelligence instead of relying on dexterity, and also allow them to focus on using a single implement to upgrade via magic rather then requiring a magic crossbow/sling that is only used in those Oh Shit moments

For Wizards, the Daily/Encounter spells are the ones that are interesting, and they act very much like the old style, requiring you to choose the right ones to use, and if you run out, you're just stuck with your At-Will powers.. which, like I said, are basically just basic attacks using Intelligence and a magical implement that can be used for your other spells, rather then a crossbow/sling that can only be used for those last ditch "OMG OUT OF SPELLS" situations.

SERIOUSLY

has anyone actually read the rulebooks?

Yes, I have read through the rules, and I find the simplification of the mechanics (i.e. the wizard's abilities only hinging on one ability score) to be boring. I like the feeling of desperation, drama, tension, etc. that arises when you start to realize that you're running out of spells. Yes, it does mean a wizard or whoever that runs out of spells early in a big encounter is kind of hosed for the rest of said encounter, but I like the idea of limits to the amount of magic a mortal can channel in a given day. Manipulating the fabric of reality is a hard thing to do.

On a note related, somewhat, to wizard at-wills is the fact that they've decided to call fighter and other melee class abilities 'powers' and divided them up into dailies/encounter/at-wills as well. In 3.x a fighter gets tons of feats, and all these feats are usable whenever the fighter wants, or provide static bonuses to saves, attacks, etc. Renaming them 'powers' kind of takes away some of the flavor I liked. I realize I can reflavor them however I want, but I think they tried to fix something that wasn't necessarily broke. They also kept feats, but made them different from the powers, which I find a little odd.

technically Martial classes powers are called 'exploits'

 

[Warwolt]

I don't think the old mechanics did anything to make the magic-using meaningfully magical, because D&D magic is about as ominous and mystical as a hand grenade. So, I don't think slapping D&D's magic rules onto other types of abilities really waters down their "magical" feel -- there's pretty much none of speak of in the first place. Expanding "dailies" to more classes instead of getting rid of them is a pretty big mistake, though.

...

"they both suck and you suck more for asking"

But I'm sort of an indie player anyway.

Let's clarify that a bit.

Enjoying D&D is a bit like enjoying Star Trek. People will make fun of you for it if D&D / Star Trek is your only exposure to science fiction. Still, Star Trek is not entirely without merit and some people with sophisticated knowledge of science fiction still like Star Trek, and even the many who don't tend to acknowledge its influence on the culture of science fiction.

So, there's nothing inherently wrong about simply enjoying Star Trek.

Being the guy who argues about which Star Trek is better on Internet forums, though...

-- Alex

But Star Trek isn't good science fiction, in any kind of way. It might be enjoyable, but its not good science fiction. Its the same with DnD. It might be enjoyable, but its not good roleplaying. Because its by far to close to the boardgames for my taste. I mean, do they even have rules for social conflict for example? Or just general indept rules outside the combat? Well even if they do, DnD is still very centered around thise whole go-around-kill-random-encounters even if a good DM can turn it around.

 

[Altorin]

4E is bad, and is failing heavily in the markets

Did Miss Cleo tell you that?

 

[Gildedtongue]

My biggest issue with the newer editions of D&D is everything is getting more and more push-button. Things that required thought and storytelling to convey into game mechanics now are summed up with one word, pointing at the character sheet and saying "I do that."

Then people tell me that the new editions are better because they sell better and more people like them. Yeah, well, Firefly was canceled after its first season, and there are even more reality shows being made, so I think that helps point out that the majority of people don't give two aerial defecations about quality, and prefer things to be as brain-free as humanly possible.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I actually found 4th Edition to be quite enjoyable if the game solely focuses on combat. I'd rather have the diverse set of skills and such, since I typically played the diplomat.

Assuming you count lying and thieving as diplomacy.

I also don't care much how the standard classes are spread across numerous PHBs. I'd rather they all be in one, rather than waste the money on individual books.

 

[NoSlottedToaster]

I quite like 4th Edition - 3.5 was completely broken (apparently) and I prefer to spend hours killing things and having fun than spending hours just talking and not having fun.

my point, all the talking is what made it role playing and all the killing is what makes it a WoW on paper, granted a good game should have equal amounts of each

Yes because DnD 4th edition forces you to do nothing but combat.

Or wait...maybe it streamlines combat so that you don't have to be hung up checking the rule book every 6 seconds so you can actually RP.

I've not seen it done poorly yet and I've been around DnD for ages which tells me it is more people's inability to evolve and use a product properly than the product itself.

I'm actually playin a DnD 4E campaign, and I have to say I am enjoying it a lot. It's NOT WoW at all. Combat feels like a wargame, which is ok since rules are very clear, tactics are very important, and a single combat doesn't last 3 hours.
People who say there's no room for roleplaying are wrong, I'm playing a Doppelganger Bard and believe me, I've roleplayed a lot.

What's also great about this edition is the limit they put into the system so as not to allow extreme powergaming. In 3.5 you could grab 1 barbarian lv, 2 fighter lvs, 2 duskblade lvs, 1 abjurant champion lv, 7 frenzied berserker lvs, etc. and build an unstoppable killing machine (it's an example, don't go "my build is better"), whereas in DnD 4E your options are limited to characters that make sense and don't grant extreme power.

I think many people are pissed because of this, being used to having overpowered characters just because they knew how to put them together, and now that kind of thing is heavily downplayed.

Also: in 4E you don't need an hour to level up.

Yeah I found that 3.5 was far easier to 'break'. You could really do some extreme stuff that made combat unwieldy and for everyone but the 'god char' unfun.

However! Given the chance I'll play either edition.

I have been playing D&D with the same people since 2nd edition and we were more excited than mad at the changes to 3rd ed and later 3.5, with 4th we gave it a shot and found it watered-down and boring. We played it from its release until a month ago (switching back to 3.5) and we spent more time in the 4th books trying to figure out what lame power did what and most of our encounters lasted hours, one fight lasted our whole 3 and 1/2 hour game. in 3.5 we have yet had to look back at a rule unless it is completely strange and our average fight is between 15 and 20 minutes. So all this talk about simplification is crazy and I only have said such negative things about 4th because I PERSONALLY have had are negative experiences... which I never had with AD&D 2nd or D&D 3.5 and as far as the Godly Characters go thats all on the DM allowing that stuff to be that way. As a DM I like to let my PCs have power but I always want there to be a bigger threat to them out there somewhere.

 

[theultimateend]

I quite like 4th Edition - 3.5 was completely broken (apparently) and I prefer to spend hours killing things and having fun than spending hours just talking and not having fun.

my point, all the talking is what made it role playing and all the killing is what makes it a WoW on paper, granted a good game should have equal amounts of each

Yes because DnD 4th edition forces you to do nothing but combat.

Or wait...maybe it streamlines combat so that you don't have to be hung up checking the rule book every 6 seconds so you can actually RP.

I've not seen it done poorly yet and I've been around DnD for ages which tells me it is more people's inability to evolve and use a product properly than the product itself.

I'm actually playin a DnD 4E campaign, and I have to say I am enjoying it a lot. It's NOT WoW at all. Combat feels like a wargame, which is ok since rules are very clear, tactics are very important, and a single combat doesn't last 3 hours.
People who say there's no room for roleplaying are wrong, I'm playing a Doppelganger Bard and believe me, I've roleplayed a lot.

What's also great about this edition is the limit they put into the system so as not to allow extreme powergaming. In 3.5 you could grab 1 barbarian lv, 2 fighter lvs, 2 duskblade lvs, 1 abjurant champion lv, 7 frenzied berserker lvs, etc. and build an unstoppable killing machine (it's an example, don't go "my build is better"), whereas in DnD 4E your options are limited to characters that make sense and don't grant extreme power.

I think many people are pissed because of this, being used to having overpowered characters just because they knew how to put them together, and now that kind of thing is heavily downplayed.

Also: in 4E you don't need an hour to level up.

Yeah I found that 3.5 was far easier to 'break'. You could really do some extreme stuff that made combat unwieldy and for everyone but the 'god char' unfun.

However! Given the chance I'll play either edition.

I have been playing D&D with the same people since 2nd edition and we were more excited than mad at the changes to 3rd ed and later 3.5, with 4th we gave it a shot and found it watered-down and boring. We played it from its release until a month ago (switching back to 3.5) and we spent more time in the 4th books trying to figure out what lame power did what and most of our encounters lasted hours, one fight lasted our whole 3 and 1/2 hour game. in 3.5 we have yet had to look back at a rule unless it is completely strange and our average fight is between 15 and 20 minutes. So all this talk about simplification is crazy and I only have said such negative things about 4th because I PERSONALLY have had are negative experiences... which I never had with AD&D 2nd or D&D 3.5 and as far as the Godly Characters go thats all on the DM allowing that stuff to be that way. As a DM I like to let my PCs have power but I always want there to be a bigger threat to them out there somewhere.

Well sure the DM can choose to cut out a bunch of material from DnD to make the game balanced but that shouldn't exactly be their job. The content shouldn't be added willy nilly.

But this time you added 'personally' to your rant which makes it acceptable by me. Plus you might want to choose a different MMO since every patch WoW has released has been pushing towards less and less grinding. I can get to the point my original char is in a VERY SMALL fraction of the time now.

I generally attribute wow comments to a lack of understanding of how things really work and perhaps that is what is crippling your argument.

My biggest issue with the newer editions of D&D is everything is getting more and more push-button. Things that required thought and storytelling to convey into game mechanics now are summed up with one word, pointing at the character sheet and saying "I do that."

Then people tell me that the new editions are better because they sell better and more people like them. Yeah, well, Firefly was canceled after its first season, and there are even more reality shows being made, so I think that helps point out that the majority of people don't give two aerial defecations about quality, and prefer things to be as brain-free as humanly possible.

Well it's not even that people like reality shows more. They cost almost nothing to make so they don't need as many viewers.

People make the association that well "If there are more of them they must be getting watched more" which isn't true on TV. Most stations aren't looking to make good quality television they are just looking to make cheap. Because a cheap show can still make you money if only a few people watch it (few being a relative term).

As for Firefly, I'm pretty sure it is a rule that Fox Networks destroy anything in their path. That show in particular was canceled for Joe Millionaire. I'm not sure HOW that works out, not like they both shared sets, my best guess is the money from firefly was redirected to that reality show and they just walked off with the remaining cash.