So, now that 4Eis out, what do you think?

Kheros · Post by **Kheros** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:09 am

Well I've so far only had 1 session, another on monday, with 4E. So take that as you may...

My experience is vastly different from Siberys', I actually enjoyed it. We RPed alot, and the 2 encounters we had during our session was fun and fast and without really annoying rules-questions/lawyering.

To those who say "where's this, where's that", WotC did state that the barbarian, bard, druid, sorcerer, et al, are being worked on for future products AFAIK.

The alignment question....I rather like good/evil/unaligned, dunno why they needed to throw CE and LG in, because to me that makes no sense

Why is being lawful associated with being good? Sure, in todays society, but medieval society it was vastly different. Law was often associated with despots and oppresors of the common man. Chaos also....why is chaos and evil together? Yes they explain it but...bleh.

And that is practically my only gripe so far.

Ian Bartles · Post by **Ian Bartles** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:40 pm

I actually rather liked 4th edition. Yes it's simplified, but simplified doesn't mean dumbed-down necessarily. First though, I'm not a very experienced D&D player so you might want to take this review with a grain of salt. I wasn't even alive when AD&D 2nd Edition was having its golden age (i.e. 80s), and have only been playing for about a year, almost always as Dungeon Master (I'd love to be a player but I can't trust my friends to made a good campaign

). Be that as it may, I am a more serious player than your average high-school kiddie, and find the role-playing and plot aspects as rewarding, if not moreso, than the hack-n-slash style of play.

There are some things I really don't like about this new system, first and foremost being the nauseatingly obvious marketing strategies. "Hey guys, how about instead of releasing the rules all at once, let's make three more core rulebooks every year. Think about the sales!" I agree that the concept of the Warlord class is downright stupid. Like a previous poster said, it's like a fighter who can shout. I also, like many of you, think the two most surprising races - the dragonborn and tiefling - are cartoonish, overpowered, and restrictive. I'm banning both from my campaign, and perhaps reintroducing some races and classes from 3.5.

That said, there's a lot I love about the new edition. The rules are intuitive and easy to keep track of: no more heated rule-arguments at the gaming table. This doesn't reduce the complexity of the game, it reduces the complexity of the rules. This produces more time spent actually, y'know, killing orcs and socializing and roleplaying, and less time checking the index of the Player's Handbook. Yes there are some omissions that some of you won't like, but just because there's no blurb on Chaotic Good doesn't mean you can't play a chaotic good character - just no capitalization

I don't know if they streamlined the rules to appeal to a "younger audience", and wouldn't be very surprised if they did, but I like it anyway. Simplification != dumbed-down. It's just a step back towards the openness of OD&D, away from the page-flipping frenzy of AD&D 2E.

While 4E has its flaws, the good changes far outweigh the bad, and the bad ones are mostly of an atmospheric nature, i.e. things that can be easily tweaked by the DM. Not everyone will like it, since a lot has to do with your personally preferred gaming style - hell some of my crazy masochist friends actually *like* thac0, purely for the tediousness of it. I simply profess that simplified rules = enhanced role-playing, and a more open, creative system in general with more room for fun improvisation, not to mention a much fuller DMing experience.

Edit: One more little note, for those of you who want to check out the rules before sinking 60$ into something you might hate, you can find well-seeded high-quality torrents of all three books at isohunt.com

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:12 pm

Honestly, I can't agree with you. The deletion of the Gather information skill and the simplification of the Diplomacy skill are alone, capable of shattering all respect I have for WoTC and 4th edition.

And in 4th edition's case, to me at least, simplifying DOES mean dumbing down.

Ian Bartles · Post by **Ian Bartles** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:26 am

Siberys wrote:Honestly, I can't agree with you. The deletion of the Gather information skill and the simplification of the Diplomacy skill are alone, capable of shattering all respect I have for WoTC and 4th edition.

And in 4th edition's case, to me at least, simplifying DOES mean dumbing down.

Holy **** I didn't even notice that :speech:

You're right that is beyond annoying. I haven't done a really in-depth analysis of the rules, just read over the 4E player's handbook (often while very sleep-deprived hah), so I probably missed some stuff. I still haven't totally decided to convert or anything, still weighing things out.

Edit: Then again, as ****ty as that is, I love how you don't have spell-slots anymore and the entire spell-casting system is just better. Wizards don't have to be constantly worrying about whether they should use a spell or save it, whether there's some big bad fight coming up or it's gonna be a session full of skeletons and goblins. 4E really is a mixed-bag.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:01 am

Syberis is right, all the simplification came at the cost of depth. Quick example: Armour. What was so hard about different sorts of armour? It added a lot of customisibility, I think, without muddling it up with complex rules. Another glaring flaw is the restrictiveness of the multiclassing. Even with the 3.5 Core books, you could make several different concepts which were more or less equivalent in potency. In 4E, your choices are laid out for you.
Oh, and I don't think the Dragonborn or Tiefling are overpowered, but they do indeed seem to be there because they're "cool". I mean, a hero with a darkside? Wow, so original, so deep...

Kheros · Post by **Kheros** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:28 am

Actually gather information skill is still there, its just called streetwise now....

As for armor: I like the new armor better, it gives more diversity in who wears what (atleast at first glance. Cleric wear chain, fighter wear scale, paladin wear plate.) Whereas in 3.X all you wanted was a mithral chainshirt, mithral breastplate, or mithral fullplate...Those idiotic and annoying choices have been taken away, and I think thats for the better.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:34 am

Well, actually, the armour doesn't change who wears what. Everybody wears Scale or sometimes Plate. So, the armour system isn't much of an improvement either. In fact, you have to types of armour, light & heavy, that's it.

Uller · Post by **Uller** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:48 pm

I agree with Gawain and Siberys...

The shift from AD&D to 3rd edition was more of playability and comon sense change.

I have been playing D&D right from the first red box set came out right through and yes AD&D was fun once you came to grips with constantly referring to tables and the like for various things. And yes the background history of Greyhawk, The Circle of Eight etc was enriching and fantastical.

However....with the invention of additional campaign worlds and the like e.g. Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms through the various novels and so forth of the times AD&D really had to evolve. And I think from AD&D to 3rd edition it kind of has and it has in a way that is more of a practical change than a dulling down change.

Now with the change from 3ed (3.5ed) to 4ed it seems like there has been more reference and influence from how systems are working from the computer gaming world as opposed to a genuine look at the history of the D&D system.

This leads me to why do people play D&D (dice and role playing)and also play MMORPG (computer) at the same time? Maybe it is because with D&D there are no real rules in place to your imagination as opposed to the systems in place in computer games. Dice role playing games are intentionally a lot different to that of computer games (MMORPG) because there should be no limit to the amount of detail you want to give your character and the amount of options should almost be limitless.

I think as soon as you start to strip the options available and simplifying a dice role playing game down to make it more playable and more akin to that of a MMORPG (computer game) you are starting to miss the point of it all.

I am absolutely certain that I will be staying with 3ed (3.5ed) from here on in unfortunately.

And I truly do mean "unfortunately" because the potential was there to create something great.

P.S. I think Gary may be turning in his grave right about now.

Kheros · Post by **Kheros** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:14 am

Ok, I guess my view is vastly different than most of those who've posted here...I don't know if I'm an optimist or just more readily able to deal with change....

Anyways, I found a thread on ENworld that illustrates my POV pretty well

ENWorld - Morrus' 4th Edition D&D / d20 News and Reviews Site - 4E - Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

I like the new changes, I don't feel they restrict me, I don't feel they make the game unplayable. I don't lack roleplay, or options, or anything else with the new edition.

And that is really all I have to say about this subject. I realize people have vastly different playstyles/needs for RPGs, and I'm sure there's something for you out there.

Remember to have fun, I know I am.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:28 am

That link has quite some pitfalls going for it.
It tells us 4E has so many options in combat, but a lot less in character creation. (Virtually, you're stuck with your class). This is only a mirror, since a large percentage of your powers are variants of "1[W] + STR damage". Sure, it "sounds" all cool and different, but it isn't any different.
In 3.5, with some feats (all Core, it wouldn't be fair to use splatbooks in our comparison) you could just as well perform Battlefield control by Tripping and Grappling.

Just the lack of class options make this a huge no-go for me.

Secondly, the balance... Well, let's see how balanced it is after the (in)famous CO-board attendees have sunk their teeth in it, and after a couple of extra books... Further, yes, at the moment it seems balanced, but they solved the problem the same way you could solve world-terrorism with 8 600 kiloton nukes. Sure, there would be no more terrorists...

Most people who don't like 4E aren't motivated by the fear of change. They genuinly like new systems, if they are an improvement. For example, I myself really like the StarWars Saga rules, which are a huge improvement. I know Syberis likes the new Paizo rules for 3.5. Fiberfar, IIRC, is really into Tome of Battle.
Not everything in 4E is for the worst, but if I make up the balance, it definitly tilts to the bad side.

P.S.: I'm not arguing that nobody can like 4E, but it would be silly to ignore the fact that it inferior in most respects. Ofcourse, you can have different priorities. (I.e.: more shallow mechanics and thus less detail.) Since it's a hobby about having fun, there's nothing wrong with it.

Bloodleither · Post by **Bloodleither** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:21 pm

Cyro wrote:I miss my Chaotic Neutral Half-Orc Bard.

I have seen many complaints about the alignment changes, and it did strike me at first, but i think there are some advantages to simplifying. I found DM's that would take the 3.x alignment rules and use them as a means to control and penalize players when they didn't toe the line. I think that the unaligned option can aid in the RP aspect by making it more about what you bring to the table and less about the rulebook. You could always play a "controller" class who's ugly, carries a banjo and and doesn't follow anyone's rules but his own... I guess.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:29 pm

Aside from Paladins, alignments were mostly meant for flavor in the first place, since first edition even.

With this alignment system, there's good and lawful good, but what if you want an Impartial character, what if the DM is making war and your character has to choose which side and both seem equally "good" in his eyes. According to the alignments provided for 4E, the concept of neutrality while abiding the law is impossible, which makes no sense because in real life, about 90% of earth's population is Lawful Neutral equivalent. They try to obey the law, but usually won't go out of their way to help every person in need.

Kheros · Post by **Kheros** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:35 am

We're all unaligned now

Bloodleither · Post by **Bloodleither** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:09 am

I think it's the skills that i am taking a big issue with. 3.x had an extensive amount of custom tweaking one could do with their character, where as now everyone is on a lock step increase of bonuses with a limited number of choices for specializing. And how the hell is it that you can sub out your choice when gaining a level?! I forgot how to climb, but now i can see and hear really well! I may be being to judgemental, our campaign hasn't lifted off yet, but having read the book i'm a little skeptical.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:20 am

I hear you.
Having read some of the raving reviews 4E is getting, I wonder if these guys ever did the effort of actually playing it? "4E offers so much variation in combat!" My foot it does. Given the decreased damage per hit and the exponential increase in HP of the monsters, combat takes more turns. In that combat, you'll be using your encounter powers (4 powers max, so 4 rounds) and maybe a daily. Since combat quickly takes 10-15 rounds, you'll be using your at will powers, which basicly amount to "weapon damage + STR" (Or some variations, based on class), constantly. So far for "variation"...

abobo · Post by **abobo** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:14 pm

yeah really what the hell. everyone i play dnd with has been looking forward to this. i was happy with second and third edition but i thought this might be good. i thought it could not be bad... but by th looks of things i was wrong. we have not played it yet though we have all the rule books, we are just finishing up from are last outing and then in to fourth... but i dont know now. i read over the books and it seems like well... crap. and i am rather upset.