We hates 4th ed DnD, we hates it precious!
- Thread starter Saskwach
- Start date
Recommended Videos
3.5 has been the one I've played so far. It's sucked me and and has so much depth to it. I can still stumble across new things, make up some much more characters, refine them perfectly to their exact characters. From what I've seen of the 4th ed, it seems... like it's taken the DnD out of it. It's not as deep, not as customisable.
From what I understand its gotten so micro managed it has taken the fun out of the game. I think I own the third edition players guide I would have to check but my gf says it gets really bad in the newer versions.
Eh, that was my fault on the other thread. I didn't really mean to have it blow up on the poor guy,
My main gripe about 4th edition is...well, just the overall "feel" is wrong. Too many "moves" in the lame books they release. It feels less like Dungeons and Dragons and more like...Diablo.
That, and the TOTAL lack of character customization.
My main gripe about 4th edition is...well, just the overall "feel" is wrong. Too many "moves" in the lame books they release. It feels less like Dungeons and Dragons and more like...Diablo.
That, and the TOTAL lack of character customization.
The only complaint I have about 4th edition is that the books are harder to read and not as pretty as in 3.5.
I don't see the big deal, otherwise. Not to mention I really like Invokers.
I don't see the big deal, otherwise. Not to mention I really like Invokers.
NeverWinter Nights is not D&D 3.5, for the love of GOD I'm so sick of people acting like it is. It is based on the 3.5 system, but doesn't follow it to the letter.Sark said:
1.0 AD&D is the best gaming system in the world, after a few homebrew game fixes.
Yeah, basically what everyone above has said. Also, once the 4e books came out, I can't find the 3.5 books anymore. I didn't get really into it until after 4e came out, but we play 3.5 when we play. (Except our DM uses a 2e DM guide, but 3.5 everything else)
Of course, I haven't looked very hard. I really can't go out and search every bookstore, seeing as I have a lack of car.
Of course, I haven't looked very hard. I really can't go out and search every bookstore, seeing as I have a lack of car.
As a combat simulation, 4th edition is a rich, well-balanced game, in ways that 3rd edition really isn't. It's designed to be played as such - and it's fun when played as such. The DM is encouraged to treat the game as a game, and fudge things in the name of player fun. It is more fair that the high level wizard and the fighter have an equal number of combat options at their disposal. 4th edition has this.
3rd edition is more of a world-simulator, it is less focused on combat and player-experience and it's combat elements were much less compelling. It is more realistic that a high-level wizard would have many tricks that a simple fighter can't match, and 3rd edition has this.
The DM's role is more or less the neutral, uncaring referee, and the content is not tailored to the players.
I prefer 4th edition overall.
3rd edition is more of a world-simulator, it is less focused on combat and player-experience and it's combat elements were much less compelling. It is more realistic that a high-level wizard would have many tricks that a simple fighter can't match, and 3rd edition has this.
The DM's role is more or less the neutral, uncaring referee, and the content is not tailored to the players.
I prefer 4th edition overall.
See, I don't like 4th Edition and I don't play 4th Edition, but...
Why are so many of the criticisms of 4th Edition so gosh-darn incoherent? Why are so many criticisms of 4th Edition based on random minutiae? Why are so many criticisms of 4th Edition based on hearsay and exaggeration?
It really feels like some of y'all are just picking descriptions at random because you don't have enough of a basis to really define what it is about an RPG you actually like or dislike.
Could it be that some of you have never even seen an RPG book that didn't have "Dungeons & Dragons" or "D20" on the cover?
-- Alex
Why are so many of the criticisms of 4th Edition so gosh-darn incoherent? Why are so many criticisms of 4th Edition based on random minutiae? Why are so many criticisms of 4th Edition based on hearsay and exaggeration?
It really feels like some of y'all are just picking descriptions at random because you don't have enough of a basis to really define what it is about an RPG you actually like or dislike.
Could it be that some of you have never even seen an RPG book that didn't have "Dungeons & Dragons" or "D20" on the cover?
-- Alex
I personally like 4th edition. (My personal favourite is still 2nd edition, THAC0 FTW!)
I like that my lvl 1 wizard can't get 1 shotted by a kobold with a sling, and that after I cast a magic missile at lvl 1, I still have spells left and don't have to try to
A: Hit something with my staff
B: Hide behind the warrior.
EDIT: Any edition of D and D I have played, and I have played them all, can be awesome or terrible. I find it largely depends on your DM and fellow players' imaginations.
As lame as that sounds n.n
I like that my lvl 1 wizard can't get 1 shotted by a kobold with a sling, and that after I cast a magic missile at lvl 1, I still have spells left and don't have to try to
A: Hit something with my staff
B: Hide behind the warrior.
EDIT: Any edition of D and D I have played, and I have played them all, can be awesome or terrible. I find it largely depends on your DM and fellow players' imaginations.
As lame as that sounds n.n
We do exist! I keep hearing that I'm the only one in the D&D playing universe who actually liked 2nd ed. Maybe it's just all the homebrew stuff we threw on top of it, but... meh. Although I don't mind the ease of multiclassing in the newer eds, I had a dual-class character in 2nd, and those were 7 very long levels until the character got to use their old abilities again (and holy hell, was that character overpowered from that minute onward).Terminalchaos said: