16 replies to this topic

[Menelanna]

My DnD group is doing a run through for 4th edition. I will make posts of our adventures every so often and let all of ya know what I think of it.

So far we have a half-elven paladin (me), a halfing rouge, a dragon-born leader (can't remember his class...), and a mage of that new elf race. (again blanking on the name. we just call it Elf +1)

There really are no more spells. Instead we have powers we can use at will, per encounter, and per day. You now have healing surges instead of spells. And potions pretty much non existant. Equipment is really cheap now too. To give you an idea of item costs now my spending gold was 100 and I bought an Adventures Kit, scimitar, a large shield and plate mail. With 15 gold to spare.

I will put more info about our game play at a later date. And go more indepth about how I feel about it. I still need to play a bit more before I can really form a strong opinion on it. If anyone else is playing 4th ed and wants to add stuff feel free.

[Bluenose]

I'm glad you're doing this, because while I have the rules my group wants to finish the two campaigns we're currently playing and we aren't going to start with 4th Ed. until we've done that. So far all I've done is create a few characters, which is no way to tell how a game will play. I did notice how cheap things were myself, it reminded me of prices in 1st Ed. a bit, and I'm glad to see a 10' ladder is still cheaper than a 10' pole

I look forward to hear more about your game and how it goes.

And I think it's "Warlord" and "Eladrin".

[khay]

Cool, keep us updated please! I`m moderately curious about 4E now, after heaing about the good things in addition to the bad ones.

[Deathsangel]

A couple in my group went to a festival and met a DM of 4th edition. He has played for about 15 years, and claimed from the first edition. He enjoyed the 4th as he said it took him less time as DM, with as example he could simply pick a monster from the book and plant it there (I don't understand the difference...), and the fact that the game was more balanced. Also due to the abilities/combat it was less of a tracking of all kinds of statistics.

Edited by Deathsangel, 14 August 2008 - 01:41 AM.

[Tempest]

Dropping in to offer my experiences after playing an experimental 4E campaign with some friends for a few weeks. To be fair, I'll leave the fact that as far as I'm concerned, FR never made it past 3.5E out of my evaluation.

The Good
- For a newcomer, the system is definitely more intuitive. Easier to get into and understand.
- Also much more newbie friendly. Most abilities and whatnot are pretty self-explanatory and exactly what they say on the tin.
- A lot of the bloat of 3.5E was removed, so there's nowhere near as much to understand.
- Easier on the DM when planning encounters, that's for sure.
- Much more balanced, classwise.
- Gameplay definitely flows more smoothly, especially if you like dungeon crawls.

The Bad
- Removing the bloat also removed a lot of the fun complexity-a great deal of creative ideas and ways to mix things up in a traditional setting got tossed out the window.
- Loss of customization. Going hand-in-hand with the above, the sheer range of choices you could make when developing a character has been badly cut down to size. Sure, lots of what got removed really was redundant or worse, but who cares when it provides *character* and spice?
- Unless you like combat, you're not going to have many options for playing. About 85% of what got cut out was stuff intended for non-combat situations. If your group liked intrigue, problem solving, and otherwise non-combat-centric adventures, your DM will have to do a lot of stuff by the seat of his pants.
- Not as many options for creative play. Going hand in hand with the second point in The Good, players who enjoyed using secondary aspects of various abilities or using them in ways that weren't intended to pull off creative solutions and stunts will find their traditional playground very limited.

Conclusion: Still a good gaming system, but not the same kind of gaming system. Good RP'ing will remain good RP'ing, regardless of system. I feel 4E was successful in what it intended to do: make a simpler game that's easier to get into and play.

Which system you like is strictly a matter of personal preference, but for the gaming style I enjoy, 2E and 3.5E are very much the superior systems.

[Menelanna]

Hey look who just reaapeared again!!! Well life has be very busy and in the past several months my group only played 4ed four times (one of which has a member sick so we played with higher lvl chars and killed a dragon).

But after the fourth game, we decided to give 4th ed. the boot. Tempest already listed pro and cons of the game. But the game turned from 'how much RP and problems can I get through in 1 hour' to 'how much can I kill in one hour!'

It can still be a fun game, but we did not feel it was really Dungeons and Dragons (I mean Magic Missle can miss now! we held a moment of silence the first time our wizard used it and missed) Mt DM even called it D&D for Dummies.

So we gave it the boot about three month ago. And now we have not gotten together to play again since college is too busy for the DM's wife (who is also one of our players.)

Prefered edition to play is by far 3.5

[oralpain]

I haven't played 4th edition, but I have read the core books.

Frankly, I think the system is far more suitable as the rule set for a CRPG than a serious table top RPG.

we did not feel it was really Dungeons and Dragons

That's exactly how many people felt about 3/3.5E.

I remember being really excited in 1999 about 3E (as AD&D 2nd edition needed and overhaul), but as more an more details were revealed, I came to realise the game was Dungeons & Dragons in name only. So, I stuck with my gradually evolving hodgepodge of Basic D&D, AD&D 1st edition, and AD&D 2nd edition.

If I do move to another game system, it will probably be Ars Magica, not any of the current editions of D&D.

Prefered edition to play is by far 3.5

Most people I know tend to prefer the systems they started with, or are most familar with, unless they are the type who feel compelled to upgrade, as if a PnP RPG can really become obsolite...

[NiGHTMARE]

I haven't played 4th edition, but I have read the core books.

I personally prefer 3.5E over all the other versions, but only because it's the easiest edition to modify if you want a non-combat orientated game; creating non-combat 3.5E class features & feats is relatively straightforward, and there are actually quite a few to begin with (especially in certain third party sourcebooks). Earlier editions barely have any rules to deal with non-combat situations, and 4E strips away almost everything 3E/3.5E introduced in this regards (other than skills, and even those are nerfed).

Of course, there are a number of 2E sourcebooks that introduce non-combat orientated stuff to the mix, but it all gets rather messy because different books introduce different (and often incompatible) systems.


IMHO 4E got two things right: freedom of choice when it comes to class features, and better differentiating class features and feats. However, they screwed both things up. Classes should have remained the same as they were in 3rd Edition, with none of this "you can choose power A or power B, but it's impossible for you to ever have both, and you can't choose them at later levels" nonsense. Instead, all classes should have been like the 3E fighter (or the 3E rogue at level 10+).

When it comes to class features and feats, actually clearly defining the two by making all abilities into class features and all enhancements into feats was a step in the right direction (although they messed this up in a few places, e.g. Power Attack is still a feat, even though it's clearly an at-will power), but I would have greatly preffered it if class features included both class-orientated abilities *and* enhancement, and feats revolved around non-class orientated stuff abilities and enhancements (e.g.racial abilities, background skill bonuses).

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 02 April 2009 - 10:30 AM.

[Bluenose]

I haven't played 4th edition, but I have read the core books.

I personally prefer 3.5E over all the other versions, but only because it's the easiest edition to modify if you want a non-combat orientated game; creating non-combat 3.5E class features & feats is relatively straightforward, and there are actually quite a few to begin with (especially in certain third party sourcebooks). Earlier editions barely have any rules to deal with non-combat situations, and 4E strips away almost everything 3E/3.5E introduced in this regards (other than skills, and even those are nerfed).

Of course, there are a number of 2E sourcebooks that introduce non-combat orientated stuff to the mix, but it all gets rather messy because different books introduce different (and often incompatible) systems.

While I understand perfectly what you say about 3.5, in that there's a lot of scope to modify it for a less combat-oriented game, I don't really find D&D in any edition to be my first choice for that sort of game. So in that respect I'm not bothered that 4E doesn't provide me as much support.

IMHO 4E got two things right: freedom of choice when it comes to class features, and better differentiating class features and feats. However, they screwed both things up. Classes should have remained the same as they were in 3rd Edition, with none of this "you can choose power A or power B, but it's impossible for you to ever have both, and you can't choose them at later levels" nonsense. Instead, all classes should have been like the 3E fighter (or the 3E rogue at level 10+).

Actually, you can pick a power from a lower level. It might not be common, but there's a rules clarification that says if you're allowed to pick up a new Daily power (say at 9th level) you can pick one from that level or lower.

When it comes to class features and feats, actually clearly defining the two by making all abilities into class features and all enhancements into feats was a step in the right direction (although they messed this up in a few places, e.g. Power Attack is still a feat, even though it's clearly an at-will power), but I would have greatly preffered it if class features included both class-orientated abilities *and* enhancement, and feats revolved around non-class orientated stuff abilities and enhancements (e.g.racial abilities, background skill bonuses).

Some of it is clearly inconsistent, with Power Attack being the most obvious example. And I really don't like having feats that grant powers, as happens with the Channel Divinity feats. There could probably have been some more feats along the lines of the Wizard's Expanded Spellbook, allowing for learning more powers at each level.

Despite the problems, I've got to say I really like the latest edition, even if I can't entirely explain why. All I know is that I look forward to playing it once a fortnight a lot more than I've looked forward to playing any edition of D&D for a long time - more than 20 years, certainly.

[Deathsangel]

Sort of related to this I am reading the Pathfinder Roleplaying game Beta version (also known as D&D 3.6). Now that gets my attention! It really tries to remove some of the flaws of D&D 3.5 and takes the game up that little notch.
I can't say I am fond of all the changes they implement, and I do have some questions here and there. However, the fighter for instance, got a very nice overhaul without destroying the feel of the class.
My question is has anyone taken a look at both 4.0 and Pathfinder thoroughly? I mean I did take a peak at 4.0. However, I am can not say I truly read it, nor have I finished with Pathfinder.

Taking the list of Tempest I come to this as a comparison

Equal to both Pathfinder and 4.0:
- For a newcomer, the system is definitely more intuitive. Easier to get into and understand.
- Much more balanced, classwise and spellwise.
- Gameplay definitely flows more smoothly, especially if you like dungeon crawls.

4.0 Unique
- Easier on the DM when planning encounters, that's for sure.
- Also much more newbie friendly. Most abilities and whatnot are pretty self-explanatory and exactly what they say on the tin.
- A lot of the bloat of 3.5E was removed, so there's nowhere near as much to understand.
- Removing the bloat also removed a lot of the fun complexity-a great deal of creative ideas and ways to mix things up in a traditional setting got tossed out the window.
- Loss of customization and creativitity (collection of last 3 bad points of Tempest)

Pathfinger Unique
- Most likely less globably available.
- Still a good deal cut or less obvious for non-combat play. Most notable in that more than half of the bards new abilities are combat orientated, and the rest is divided among social and knowledge stuff.

[Bluenose]

I haven't played Pathfinder, and it's highly unlikely I ever will. I have read one of the Alphas and the Beta, but I can't say I was particularly impressed. There seems to be a fundamental dichotomy between their two stated goals:

1. Fix the things we think are wrong with D&D 3.5
2. Keep compaitibiliy with D&D 3.5

Every change you make to help with the first takes you further away from the second. Everything you decide not to change because of the second is a failure to address the first.

I would be a lot happier if they either set out to produce a good game based on the D20 SRD but not worrying about compatibility, or decided to simply produce a printed version of the SRD as-is with the few extra rules needed to make it a complete game. As things are they seem to be falling somewhere between the two goals, changing enough that it isn't really something that can be used with a 3.5 game but not changing enough to be interesting in itself. But this is based solely on reading Pathfinder, and I can't say how it would work in play.

[Rodman49]

4th Edition is far and away better than 3.5 Edition. I'm currently DMing a 4th edition campaign where we have had over 60 hours of playtime over the past month. All this lost complexity stuff you guys are talking about it bullshit.

The only thing 3rd edition had that was any good was its multi-class system. Combat is better in 4th edition, character building is more streamlined, and skills have been aggregated into fewer categories.

If your group is having problems with Roleplaying and its becoming a dungeon crawl then either your players or your DM need to step it up. 4th edition almost has no changes for roleplaying elements of the game.

[NiGHTMARE]

Some of it is clearly inconsistent, with Power Attack being the most obvious example. And I really don't like having feats that grant powers, as happens with the Channel Divinity feats. There could probably have been some more feats along the lines of the Wizard's Expanded Spellbook, allowing for learning more powers at each level.

I'm slowly working on my own 3.5 Edition-based system, and while playing Fallout 3 recently (which uses the SPECIAL system, inspired by GURPS) I had an epiphany: I can have feats - which grant powers - and perks - which grant bonuses. However, I'm yet to decided at what pace characters should gain these: I'm thinking one of each at 1st level (as well as various predefined ones for each class), and then every three additional character levels for feats (4th, 7th, 10th, etc), and perhaps every two character levels for perks (3rd, 5th, 7th, etc).

(BTW that's character levels, rather than class levels: in my system classes basically only serve as templates regarding primary stats, skill sets, and basic powers and bonuses. What feats and perks you have access to is generally determined only by your stats and skills - though there are some only available to characters of certain races, cultures, social status, etc.)

Come to think of it, computer RPGS have inspired quite a few of my tweaks, especially when it comes to skills. For example, attacking, defending, and casting spells now all rely on skills (as in Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and numerous others), which goes a long way towards making a less combat orientated system - you can have high level characters who are absolutely useless in combat, but excel in completely different areas. Skills also now range from 0-100 (again as in ES and FO) but the points you can place in each are limited by a combination of stats and character level (as in Drakensang). Two Worlds and the Gothic series have inspired some things, too.

4th Edition has also been an influence, although I have been very careful not to blatantly copy anything introduced in that system, as I hope to one day publish this one the 'net somewhere . For example, the divine spellcasting skill is called "channel divinity", which is pretty different from what 4E's "channel divinity" is.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 11 June 2009 - 10:31 AM.

[AnnabelleRose]

I have looked at 4th ed, and it seems like nothing more then Wizard's rebooted the system to make it match the new trendy gaming systems.

3.0/3.5 made sense to me as a transition from my hybrid 1st/2nd ed system I used. I resisted it at first, played it, and fell in love with it.

I am in no rush to "upgrade" to 4.0, besides, right now 3.5 ed books are cheap (I got a new copy of the Dragonicon for $10).

With that said, please keep posting on experiences playing 4.0. I am still curious, just not ready to invest in the new system and have even more outdated books.

I am still thinking of putting my 1st/2nd ed collection on eBay. I have tons of those.

Mind you, I still play the classic TSR Marvel RPG. Even wrote a netbook for it.

[Satori]

Any system where I have to stop and ad hoc rules for something more than twice per session is incomplete and I'm not paying money for it.

This is why I will not be buying Feng Shui, Exalted (or for that matter, anything by white wolf- FWIH, the only game they have that is decently set up is Vampire, and i hate the "you must be emo fluff" of that), or D&D 4th edition.

Honesty, D&D 4th edition is a perfectly good game... If you take out the D&D part of the name and compare it to say, Feng Shui or any other Combat focused RPG, instead of thinking about it in terms of 3.5 or AD&D 2.0. From that perspective you have a VERY solid system that is balanced and smooth.

If you do think of it as a successor to 3.4 of 2.0 it fails horribly due to massive reduction in scope. But arguably, D&D 4e wasn't meant to have that much scope, and it's a little unfair to expect that. Then again, if they meant to cut it down that much, they shouldn't have raised our expectations by giving it the D&D name.

Alas, I always use that broad scope when I play, so 4th simply isn't sufficient for my play style.

Edited by Satori, 17 October 2009 - 09:49 AM.

[Carleton]

Is it still possible to make a 3.5 style forsaker/frenzied berserker and terrorize the party by destroying their magic items with 60 damage power attacks with the assured mutual destruction, if anyone tries to protest, that was deathless frenzy?

Half red Dragon Treants, taking away their only weakness, fire?

At least I last heard there aren't jerk monk players that take a "vow of poverty"... yet. I'm also a fan of getting 7 people together and only having 2 people with their characters ready by the end of the evening - which they finished in the first 10 minutes.

Edited by Carleton, 23 January 2010 - 05:49 PM.

[domeplsffs]

Hi there,
i have to agree with the people who mentionend thats it's kind of an unvalid attempt to compare D&D 4th and the 3.5 edition. as mentionend before,'the wizards' streamlined the whole concept and made it more beginner-friendly. an act which annoys me to no end. but however... it's a different concept of playing and gaming.. imo the new edition is more 'WOW-like' or to whatever pc-(MMo)rpg you want to relate to. it's action heavier und easier on both players and dm's which, again i find annying as shit, since imo a good rpg beginns with the players trying to get into the absract concept of playing, and not getting 'kick-started' into it, but anyways, i think you just can'T compare the bith, since they offer completly different experiences IMO. anyways cheers to all

(sorry for bad grammar and englisch in generall, i'm a bit wasted and it's late >.<)