Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
SIGIL

Thoughts on 4.0 now that the fervor has died down a bit

4e D&D  

129 members have voted

  1. 1. Rate 4th Edition D&D

    • I'll stick with a previous version of D&D
      43
    • I'm going to play a different RPG entirely.
      24
    • My group plays it, but I'm not a fan.
      3
    • I like it. I'm not giving up my old systems, but there's room on my bookcase for this one, too.
      36
    • I'm probably going to get rid of my old stuff, it's really good!
      9
    • Best. Version. Ever.
      14
  2. 2. Have you actually played, or just read about it?

    • I've only read the internet and heard some anecdotal reviews by friends.
      20
    • Read it. Haven't played, though.
      31
    • Played once or twice.
      29
    • Have a campaign with multiple sessions so far.
      49


Recommended Posts

4th Ed has changed so much that it takes a while to wrap your head around it. There are some changes that I don't like, but a lot that I do.

 

Ishil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Why'd they take out Half Orcs and Gnomes?...

 

So they can sell a Player's Handbook II with gnomes, halforcs, druids, barbarians and bards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So they can sell a Player's Handbook II with gnomes, halforcs, druids, barbarians and bards

 

Of course, they probably wouldn't have any issues if they had just used a smaller font, more efficient use of white-space, and made the book just a bit longer. But then they wouldn't have a compelling reason to sell more stuff to get the "complete" set. The criticism of 3xe by some was that it was a "Collectable Book RPG." Seems silly now.

 

As someone coming from earlier editions (I played every version of D&D since OD&D), and this game feels less complete than other versions (including the reccommendation in the book to "just better to not use mounted combat" :blink: )

 

Damon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So they can sell a Player's Handbook II with gnomes, halforcs, druids, barbarians and bards

 

Of course! Stupid me for not thinking with a 'commercial' head on. It really P%*ses me off when games companies 'fail' to put all the rules in one useful book. I don't mind buying world/region/country guides or supplements that deal with more obscure or specialist themes - like evil, religion or the other planes, for example. Core rules should all be in one place and be complete.

 

When WOTC released 3.5 we pretty much knew how it was going down. Will Paizo do the same with Pathfinder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Paizo is going to mess with the release schedule in the same way as 4e does. FREX when you get PF, it will be "complete" ( as based on what came before) in one book. This is based on the Beta rules (free on their website).

 

Damon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Why'd they take out Half Orcs and Gnomes?...

 

So they can sell a Player's Handbook II with gnomes, halforcs, druids, barbarians and bards

Though you wouldn't have thought of them as essential if they hadn't been in an earlier edition.

 

Ishil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Why'd they take out Half Orcs and Gnomes?...

 

So they can sell a Player's Handbook II with gnomes, halforcs, druids, barbarians and bards

Though you wouldn't have thought of them as essential if they hadn't been in an earlier edition.

 

Ishil

 

If I remember correctly, in 1.0, the Barbarian and Bard were NOT core classes. You ran away when you found a bard - they were a minimum 7th level fighter / 7th level Thief. I don't recall half-orks or gnomes being the that book, either......

 

The number of races / classes in the PH1 for 4 is good. Lots of options in there - enough new material for everyone to see it, and enough old material to make some happy. The PH2 should really expand the game - I would guess as big as the PH1, so 8 new races and 8 new classes (could be wrong there - might be 4 and 4, with new powers for the core ones printed already).

 

I like the direction of the game. I did not like 3.0 or 3.5, and while there is stuff here I don't like, it is no worse an evil. I will only go back to 3.X mechanics for other games (Judge Dredd, Weird Wars, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the things that made it easier for us all is that we printed out cards for our powers. So when we use an encounter power, we just flip it until the end of the encounter, etc.

 

Oh, yes, I'm in agreeance there. It feels so much better to throw down a power card with all the info, than to exclaim that I am doing such-and-such, and having to spend a few minutes with the book to look up what it really does.

 

 

I quite like 4.0. It runs smooth, the classes have defined roles and everyone contributes, not just the magic-users who just end up annihilating the board later on in the game as I experienced with 3.5. I've both played and DMed 4.0, and it's very easy to handle. My only real complaint is the lack of variety of classes, but that's because I play in a large group.

 

I love minions. I love how the group walks into a place, sees a crapload of minis out, freak because they think there's too many, and after one or two go down, realise that they are just 1HP :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't recall half-orks or gnomes being the that book, either......

 

Half-orcs were in the 1e PHB.

 

The number of races / classes in the PH1 for 4 is good. Lots of options in there - enough new material for everyone to see it, and enough old material to make some happy. The PH2 should really expand the game - I would guess as big as the PH1, so 8 new races and 8 new classes (could be wrong there - might be 4 and 4, with new powers for the core ones printed already).

 

IMHO the old material is at best nominal. And 4 class/race combos is still less than the 3xe PHB. So on that ground, you may think its enough, but in terms of value-for-product, there's less there.

 

The implications of this model for veteran D&D players is profound. The core book gives you fewer character builds than all previous editions (save OD&D in which class and race were partially synonymous). This means for people that want to continue their campaign (ignoring WotC's suggestion we trash our old, lame, and boring campaign), and rebuild under 4e means we can't---until maybe we buy the supplemental material. When we converted from 2e to 3e, the core PHB was satisfactory enough that we converted our characters just fine (not to mention the core books were at a special price those days for $19.99). What this means is we'd have to put the campaign on hold until at least the 4e PHB2...or just keep playing 3xe.

 

I think if 4e was more like Star Wars Saga, it would be a bit more palatable (though not perfect...now that we have switched from D&D to SW Saga some o the chrome has come off the rules and the changes clearly shows that Saga was a playtest rules sold to the general public). If 4e were more like Saga, we'd still be playing.

 

In the end, 4e took the game in a direction I dislike...as well as at least half the group. I've been playing and buying D&D products since 1983...25 years. This edition means I will not be buying D&D products anymore (well, at least we'll see what 5e will be like in 8 years...maybe less...).

 

Damon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't recall half-orks or gnomes being the that book, either......

 

Half-orcs were in the 1e PHB.

 

As were gnomes, druids and bards (barbarians were added in UA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4th Ed looks and feels like D&D for online players - it's way too Munchkin for me. I'll be sticking with 3/3.5.
3.5 is way more munchkin friendly. Granted that may have a lot to do with not as many $upplement$ are available for 4E yet, but it certainly seems 4E has leveled out damage output for characters to make everyone less of a glass cannon. A careful eye was given to AC & Attack bonuses so players CAN'T make themselves unhittable.
4The artwork is nice, though. Why'd they take out Half Orcs and Gnomes?
Gnomes were on chopping block since 3e. I've "heard" they were not going to make it into 3E, but at the time , the CEO of wotc, Peter Adkison, insisted. 4E reinvented them as full on fea critters.

 

Orcs are monsters, a blemish on the world to be lanced. None of that "Proud Warrior race" or "Noble Savage" crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orcs are monsters, a blemish on the world to be lanced.

 

No lancing, since characters engaging in mounted combat are penalized for doing so, and the books stress the DM "not to do it."

 

Damon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our group went from 3.5 to Savage Worlds and have no intention of going into Hasbro. It's very difficult to imagine a level based game anymore, but if it's your thing, have at it, and enjoy.

 

I'll echo the sentiments about group chemistry. If I were in a 4.0 game with great players having a good time, I'm sure I would enjoy it for a time, but as for the mechanics and the system, I've got way more options with SW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the fervor has died down, I stand by my previous statement that 4.0 is a totally new system, as different from 3.5 as 3.5 is from GURPS. When I tried to play it I was lost and didn't know what to do half the time.

 

I refuse to learn how to play D&D all over again, so no 4th ed for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I pulled out the old books to see what we had to start with in the very beginning.

Three main classes; Fighting Men, Magic-Users and Clerics

Fighting Men include Elves, Dwarves and even Hobbits (yes, that's right Hobbits)

 

Dwarves could be only be fighting men and could not get higher than 6th level

Elves could be fighting men or magic-users and could freely switch between classes whenever they choose

Halflings could only be fighting men and could not progress beyond 4th level

 

Other character types

Ther eis no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e, a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.

 

Then the first supplement came out; Greyhawk

We got to add Paladins to fighting men

and Thieves. Dwarves, Elves, Half-Elves or Hobbits (again with the Hobbits) could be thieves with no restriction on level.

There was still max level restrictions on all the other classes depending on your race although with scores of 17 or 18 in the primary ability you could go up 1 or 2 levels higher.

Or yes, we got to add Half Elves

 

I seem to have misplaced my copies of Blackmoor and Eldritch Wizardry. I'm pretty sure we added Druids in Eldritch Wizardry though, we may have gotten psionics then too.

 

Everything else was added from the Dragon Magazine and then codified a bit better when Basic and Advanced D&D came into existance.

 

I believe that as a group we immediately discarded any type of level restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×