Bought the books yesterday. Love them. Only problem is that retarded spike on the green dragon's nose.
Edit: Creating adventures just got a lot more fun and a lot easier.
got my books, did my first read through.
So to all you 3.5 hold outs, have fun with your pegasi (ess? Guess it goes to show how much i used em eh)
Yes.. I am not sure why the missing classic monsters bothers people so much. It's extremely easy to create new monsters in 4E, especially if you have an idea of what you want to create (imagining whole new monsters that aren't big tentacly masses is somewhat hard for me...)
I picked up the core books yesterday, and have been browsing them, but I haven't yet tried to make a character or run a game.
Normally I dm, so my views of the new game are from a dm perspective not a player perspective. I am also currently wrapping up the Savage Tide adventure path. We are about to start the last adventure (tomorrow it begins), so I have recently had a lot of experience dealing with the strains of high level PCs in a 3E game.
My first impression is that I like a lot of what I see. Some of the criticisms that others have don't bother me at all. For instance the game does seem a lot more geared to running a single class character. It is well set up to play a straight fighter from 1st-30th level. I have never seen this happen in a 3E game. All the characters in my party have spell casting abilities because the players find that running a pure martial character like a fighter doesn't give them enough to tactical options to keep playing such a character interesting for the long haul. Thus, the players either run spellcasters or multiclass, so that they have access to spellcaster ie (our fighter/swashbuckler/wizard/abjurant champion/eldritch knight). From my point of view as a dm, twinky characters like that are a pain my ass, as I have a tough time monitoring their myriad abilities. I could of course restrict all these options (and trust me there is a lot that I disallow), but that detracts from the players' fun, so I try to compromise as much as possible. As a result, having a game that allows for all types of classes to have plenty of tactical options that are fairly balanced and easy to understand and use is of great appeal to me. It will be much easier for me to keep tabs on the PCs and their power levels, and I think some of my marital minded players will finally feel like playing a martial character is a viable option in higher levels of play.
The character classes excite me and if I were a player I'd be eager to try out any of them. However, I can see complaints from those who feel like illusionist, enchanter and summoner type characters are no longer viable. I think the new system will require more character classes than previous systems. For instance, I see the need for classes based on the old school of magic. The wizard feels far more like an evoker or warmage, and seems to be missing some of the versatility of the 3E wizard. However, at low levels I think the 4E wizard is far superior to the 3E wizard, as they have way more options than a low level 3E wizard would.
I haven't looked too extensively at the combat system, but I do like that for the most part PCs won't be making anymore than 2 attacks in a round. Right now I'm in a situation where our gish character usually goes into a fight with two weapons while hasted and uses wraith strike combined with arcane strike. Watching him trying to roll all his attacks and figure out the damage is a brutal agony that I will not miss in the least with the advent of the 4E combat system. Fortunately, he usually tries to do this between turns to speed things up, but it still hurts, and as a dm I kind of like to see them throw out their dice, so if the character's turn consists of one or two important die rolls that the whole table gets to watch, than I think that makes for a much more interesting and fun gaming experience.
I like what I see in the dmg and monster manual. Some of the monsters have been simplified compared to 3E, but others have been given a few extra tricks. Pretty much every monster has some neat thing that it can do that will give it interesting tactical options.
I love, love, love the addition of minion and solo monster rules! Way too many of my 3E BBEG monsters have gone down too fast when being hammered by a party of powerful PCs. The solo monster rules will really help to make these guys the tough challenge they should be.
I do find some of the monsters a bit too simple. Lately I've been running lots of demons in Savage Tide, and that was one of the first sections of the monster manual I wanted to check out. These types of monsters have been vastly stripped of their spell-like abilities, and seem greatly simplified compared to their 3E counterparts. I find that taking away the spell-like abilities some of them had makes them a little less interesting to me, but it looks like it would be easy to add some of these features back in, and this is one of the other things I like about the new monster system- customizing monsters looks faster and easier than ever. If I want to make a wizard villain I don't have to build him like a PC and pick out a full spell book and figure out which spells I want him to memorize (I used to spend a lot of time doing that getting ready for 3E games). I can do this if a I want in 4E, but I can also just grab a few of the wizard powers that I think will be most useful for the encounter and run with those. I don't need to worry about a 2 page stat block for a monster.
Some of the monsters in 4E are much different in terms of power level than their 3E counter parts. This will make conversions somewhat of a challenge. For instance, I was planning on trying to run a 4E version of curse of the crimson throne once our Savage Tide campaign is done. A lot of it looks like it would convert well, but the Rakashtas are 15-17th level monsters, which will be too tough for use when the heroes are supposed to deal with these creatures in the AP. Therefore, I'd likely have to rebuild that monster, but the 4E rules are well set up for doing this without too much fuss, so it is manageable.
All and all, I think the game will prove easier for a dm to run than a 3E game, but still fun and exciting with plenty of nasty tricks to throw at the PCs. I look forward to trying it out either as a player or dm.
Yes.. I am not sure why the missing classic monsters bothers people so much. It's extremely easy to create new monsters in 4E, especially if you have an idea of what you want to create (imagining whole new monsters that aren't big tentacly masses is somewhat hard for me...)
Weird. My home-made monsters tend to be ... tentacle-y ... as well. Does this speak to some deep pathology?
|
Yes.. I am not sure why the missing classic monsters bothers people so much. It's extremely easy to create new monsters in 4E, especially if you have an idea of what you want to create (imagining whole new monsters that aren't big tentacly masses is somewhat hard for me...)Weird. My home-made monsters tend to be ... tentacle-y ... as well. Does this speak to some deep pathology?
It's the subconscious influence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Mmmmmm.. Pasta.|
|
Some of the monsters in 4E are much different in terms of power level than their 3E counter parts. This will make conversions somewhat of a challenge. For instance, I was planning on trying to run a 4E version of curse of the crimson throne once our Savage Tide campaign is done. A lot of it looks like it would convert well, but the Rakashtas are 15-17th level monsters, which will be too tough for use when the heroes are supposed to deal with these creatures in the AP. Therefore, I'd likely have to rebuild that monster, but the 4E rules are well set up for doing this without too much fuss, so it is manageable.
I rebuilt some Kuo-Toa this morning as 6th level so I could use them in Zenith Trajectory. (oops, spoiler alert - there *might* be Kuo-Toa in Zenith Trajectory - I'm not saying one way or the other though.) It wasn't too bad, actually. You can keep the same basic roles, the powers can basically work the same. You just have to ramp down the numbers. The "building your own monster" pages in the DMG have a great chart for calculating everything.
I'm now trying to figure out how to turn an umber hulk "soldier" into a 6th level solo brute. It's a bit more work but it's not too bad.
|
|
Your DM doesn't sound too bad, but these future DMs, raised on Rule Zero, will eventually start demanding that everyone run goblin commoners in a Far Realm campaign. No one will want to play D&D with these overbearing a#%!~*# DMs, the player base will be destroyed as a result, and the game will be ruined.
Come on, man, this is so 2E ...
Never been through the dreaded "reverse dungeon" ? :°
My players keep praising this one ten years after.
I saw the books last night. My gut reaction? It confirmed for me what I had guessed would be my opinion of the new game system. I have almost no interest at all in them. After mulling over the parts that I read, I came to the realization were I 12 years old (when I first began D&D... the red box set), I would love 4E. It does seem simple, and it is easy to read and I bet I would think it's an amazing game.
But a little too easy and a little too suggestive ("take this power if you want to be better defending your friends") for my tastes. Now that I'm older, I look for complexity and detail, and completeness, and tradition and nostalgia, and 3rd edition has mostly accomplished these for me. Really with just the 3 core books and only a select few supplements... (Unearthed Arcana, PHB II, MIC, and Rules Compendium to be exact). I do find myself drawing as well from concepts from the older 2nd edition rules that I feel should have stayed with 3E.
Perhaps my feelings for the new edition will change as time goes on. I may be able to ignore aspects of the game that I don't like and play with what I do... as I have with all previous versions... but 4E has so many that I just can't get around.
I try to look past some of that, and keep in mind that the designers have to assume that someone picking up the books could be new to the hobby and need to have it feel accessible. I disagree that it lacks detail. There is tons of detail, and tons of options. Currently 3E has more, but there are way more supplements. However, there are huge discrepancies in how all the options in 3E balance and work with one another (which is my biggest problem with the edition).
I saw the books last night. My gut reaction? It confirmed for me
what I had guessed would be my opinion of the new game system. I have almost no interest at all in them. After mulling over the parts that I read, I came to the realization were I 12 years old (when I first began D&D... the red box set), I would love 4E. It does seem simple, and it is easy to read and I bet I would think it's an amazing game.
But a little too easy and a little too suggestive ("take this power if you want to be better defending your friends") for my tastes. Now that I'm older, I look for complexity and detail, and completeness, and tradition and nostalgia, and 3rd edition has mostly accomplished these for me. Really with just the 3 core books and only a select few supplements... (Unearthed Arcana, PHB II, MIC, and Rules Compendium to be exact). I do find myself drawing as well from concepts from the older 2nd edition rules that I feel should have stayed with 3E.
Perhaps my feelings for the new edition will change as time goes on. I may be able to ignore aspects of the game that I don't like and play with what I do... as I have with all previous versions... but 4E has so many that I just can't get around.
|
So I went to D&D Game day today. Didn't get a chance to play as they had already started by the time I got there. i did help one kid out though, as he had never played before. So I looked over his shoulder and advised him.
I also looked through the PHB and purchased a copy. There are some things I'm not crazy about, but overall - not a bad game.
Well I've played the official adventure on DnD day and skimmed the books. I'm slowly going to be picking through them over the course of the next week. Over all I'm feeling fairly good about the whole thing. This may or may not change depending on what happens when I get to read the books in fuller detail. Here are my thoughts so far.
First off, it seems that things are a lot more strongly front loaded. For first level characters we were pounding out some serious damage and had a fat stack of HP to boot. Felt more like a 5th level 3e or 3.5 character as far a power level. I think that the new system of powers worked well. I liked having a list of daily, encounter and at will powers. Gave everyone some fun stuff to work with as well as a few big guns to pull out during the course of the game. To be honest though some of them seemed a little over powered. The ranger's ability to deal 1d8 damage with his "Hunter's Quarry" ability automatically felt like too much. (I'm hoping that the player just read the ability wrong) I liked the idea of characters being able to take a rest and get some HP back with the second wind ability, though I'm not sure if those HP should be temporary or not.
Anyhow, once agian my first impressions were favorable and I'm looking foreward to giving 4e a more rigorous campain length test.
Well I've played the official adventure on DnD day and skimmed the books. I'm slowly going to be picking through them over the course of the next week. Over all I'm feeling fairly good about the whole thing. This may or may not change depending on what happens when I get to read the books in fuller detail. Here are my thoughts so far.
First off, it seems that things are a lot more strongly front loaded. For first level characters we were pounding out some serious damage and had a fat stack of HP to boot. Felt more like a 5th level 3e or 3.5 character as far a power level. I think that the new system of powers worked well. I liked having a list of daily, encounter and at will powers. Gave everyone some fun stuff to work with as well as a few big guns to pull out during the course of the game. To be honest though some of them seemed a little over powered. The ranger's ability to deal 1d8 damage with his "Hunter's Quarry" ability automatically felt like too much. (I'm hoping that the player just read the ability wrong) I liked the idea of characters being able to take a rest and get some HP back with the second wind ability, though I'm not sure if those HP should be temporary or not.
Anyhow, once agian my first impressions were favorable and I'm looking foreward to giving 4e a more rigorous campain length test.
Welcome aboard Sel! I'm pretty jazzed about 4E and always happy to see some more adopters show up! If you have any questions feel free to post and me or someone else will surely show up and try our best to give an answer.
I'm not sure precisely what was going on with Hunter's Quarry in the game you played, but I can tell you that the ability requires the Ranger to actually hit his quarry to generate any extra damage, and he can only get that extra damage once per round. It's the Rangers answer to Sneak Attack, fyi.
Cheers! :)
|
|
Hi all,
I'm am awaiting my copies of the book (bought for me by a friend), so I went to Borders yesterday to take a look at the new PH.
My first reaction: This is some damn fine artwork. I mean, this is the best looking set of books WotC has ever come out with. My congratulations to the art director and, of course, the artists themselves.
Second reaction: Where are the spell lists?
I admit I have not kept up on all the news about 4e because it really sounded like it was going to be a video game without the video. However, I thought I could be wrong and wanted to give it a chance.
Then I looked at the wizard, and I noted that magic missile is now an at-will spell power. I immediately thought "Red wizard, your life force is running low. Red wizard shot the food!" Yes, the D&D wizard has become the wizard of the classic Gauntlet coin-op games!
I put the book back on the shelf at that point and left the store. I'm not sure if the book set I'll be getting will be any more than a paperweight at this point.
Hi all,
I'm am awaiting my copies of the book (bought for me by a friend), so I went to Borders yesterday to take a look at the new PH.
My first reaction: This is some damn fine artwork. I mean, this is the best looking set of books WotC has ever come out with. My congratulations to the art director and, of course, the artists themselves.
Second reaction: Where are the spell lists?
I admit I have not kept up on all the news about 4e because it really sounded like it was going to be a video game without the video. However, I thought I could be wrong and wanted to give it a chance.
Then I looked at the wizard, and I noted that magic missile is now an at-will spell power. I immediately thought "Red wizard, your life force is running low. Red wizard shot the food!" Yes, the D&D wizard has become the wizard of the classic Gauntlet coin-op games!
I put the book back on the shelf at that point and left the store. I'm not sure if the book set I'll be getting will be any more than a paperweight at this point.
Ah but Wizards in DnD have one very important difference from their Gauntlet brethren. You don't have to feed extra quarters into the game in order to get more playtime. Once you've bought the books, the playtime is free!
Cheers! :)
I saw the books last night. My gut reaction? It confirmed for me what I had guessed would be my opinion of the new game system. I have almost no interest at all in them. After mulling over the parts that I read, I came to the realization were I 12 years old (when I first began D&D... the red box set), I would love 4E. It does seem simple, and it is easy to read and I bet I would think it's an amazing game.
Hmm. I actually think at 12 I might well have preferred 3.5 with its complex but highly structured rules system. As a young DM a lot of my problems were arguments with the players and 3.5 generally provides a pretty definitive answer to most questions compared to the rules in 1st (and later 2nd).
The complexity probably would not have bothered me - we used to go to one of the gangs house on Friday - play till 4 in the morning and then start again at around noon on Saturday and play until around 8 before going home ('cause, for most of us we had to go home Saturday night so that we could do our homework and chores on Sunday). Nonetheless thats a lot of D&D. If I played that much D&D these days I'd probably really love the long complex battles of high level 3.5.
For me the appeal of 4E is in many ways the fact that my gang of players are really only going to play for about 3 and a half hours one night a week and even that is surprisingly often cancelled by new babies, marriages and various players going on vacation. I've found that everyone at the table is kind of deflated if we start the game in the middle of a fight and we are still in that fight when its time to go home. Its as if we just did not advance the story at all during the week. I'm hoping that the streamlined rules system will allow for battles that still feel epic and exciting but that generally resolve more quickly so that me and my group are more likely to feel that the story has advanced a little more in the 3 and a half hour play time we have together during the week.
Hmm. I actually think at 12 I might well have preferred 3.5 with its complex but highly structured rules system. As a young DM a lot of my problems were arguments with the players and 3.5 generally provides a pretty definitive answer to most questions compared to the rules in 1st (and later 2nd).The complexity probably would not have bothered me - we used to go to one of the gangs house on Friday - play till 4 in the morning and then start again at around noon on Saturday and play until around 8 before going home ('cause, for most of us we had to go home Saturday night so that we could do our homework and chores on Sunday). Nonetheless thats a lot of D&D. If I played that much D&D these days I'd probably really love the long complex battles of high level 3.5.
For me the appeal of 4E is in many ways the fact that my gang of players are really only going to play for about 3 and a half hours one night a week and even that is surprisingly often cancelled by new babies, marriages and various players going on vacation. I've found that everyone at the table is kind of deflated if we start the game in the middle of a fight and we are still in that fight when its time to go home. Its as if we just did not advance the story at all during the week. I'm hoping that the streamlined rules system will allow for battles that still feel epic and exciting but that generally resolve more quickly so that me and my group are more likely to feel that the story has advanced a little more in the 3 and a half hour play time we have together during the week.
Boy, tell me about it. It took my group two weeks to fight Adimarchus at the end of SCAP. In between there was one week off because of a vacation (or maybe a holiday, I forget now). While I think everyone had fun, by the third week so much of the tension had drained away it was kind of disappointing. Hopefully, 4E will cut down on situations like that, where a battle honestly rages across two entire game nights.
Cheers! :)
Hi everyone - long time reader, first post. I wanted to get and read my books before making any posts. Now that I have them, and have skimmed them to an extent, here are my thoughts.
I like the classes and most of the races. I don't see the need for 2 elves and I could easily do without dragonborn. I love the changes to half-elves (which have always been my fave race). I dislike the lack of a negative attribute for each race. I think there are enough options for a core rulebook, though I look forward to other ones in future books.
I think the mechanics work well for the game type that the rules are (IMO) clearly intended to support. I don't think they would work as well with other gaming styles, and that could turn out to be a mistake in the long run. I do think combat will flow faster.
I feel heroic tier feats are somewhat lacking at the moment.
I like the skill system, but there are too few skills. It feels like a step back in that regard.
I dislike the alignment system. IMO, it's worse than the old one and I did not think that was possbile.
I dislike Points of Light. I feel it's a very iffy basis for most games and I think it's position as the baseline game was an error that never should have been made.
There does seem to be a lack of support for games that are not combat based, both in powers and in the attitude presented in the books. I dislike a lot of the tone of the writers when they are discussing things that are not 'bash down the door, kill the monsters'. They seem to project a dislike for other styles of gaming and that is not a good thing for the developers to have. For instance, I don't see how a pure intrigue game would work under 4E.
I *hate* the magic item identification system. Hate it. (For those of you without the books, if you find a magic item and have it in your possession when you take an extended rest, you know all it's abilities when that rest is over.) If I DM 4e, I'm making Identify a ritual and tossing out the RAW ID system.
I also dislike the reduced powers on high end monsters. As another poster said, I think monsters will become stale since they have so few options for power use.
In the end, I think the success of any given group with 4E will depend soley on the type of game they enjoy. If it's combat heavy this system looks awesome. If not, I think it will be very suboptimal.
I'm no fan of many of the changes in 4e and don't think the game's for me in the long run.
But the layout of the PH is excellent, clear, and easy to read. In that sense, it's much better than the more artistically-driven and pretty, but cluttered and hard to read 3e.
After 2 sessions of D&D 4E, here's my first reactions:
* It's really not harder to die in 4E.. Our party's fighter almost dropped in the surprise round of the first combat. One of the kobold skirmishers crit him, and the other just hit him, and they both had a sneak attack like thing. Later on in that battle, the party's wizard (played by the DM, me) got flanked by two other skirmishers and fell, one point away from death. Luckily he rolled a 20 on his second death saving throw, much to the chagrin of the party's drow cleric of Lolth.
* Skill Challenges are fun... like Really Fun. Now trying to convince a hobgoblin paladin of Bane to transport your party across the Burning Sea to the fabled Golden Temple of Pelor won't happen after a simple diplomacy or bluff check. The role-playing that went on during the skill challenge was some of the best we've had yet, and even the Fighter was able to contribute by challenging the Hobgoblin to a arm wrestling match and winning, which won the dark knight's respect.
...There does seem to be a lack of support for games that are not combat based, both in powers and in the attitude presented in the books. I dislike a lot of the tone of the writers when they are discussing things that are not 'bash down the door, kill the monsters'. They seem to project a dislike for other styles of gaming and that is not a good thing for the developers to have. For instance, I don't see how a pure intrigue game would work under 4E...
...In the end, I think the success of any given group with 4E will depend soley on the type of game they enjoy. If it's combat heavy this system looks awesome. If not, I think it will be very suboptimal.
Really?
I'm honestly pumped about this whole angle due to the skill challenge system. I'm actually tempted to go back and look at some of Logues Ebberon adventures and convert some of the scenes into skill challenges.
That said I think that things like skill challenges probably work best with something of a 'pulp' or blockbuster feel. Trying to figure out how to get through the crowded city square and onto the back of the waggon caravan thats pulling out of town at high speed, that sort of thing.
The system emphasizes doing stuff thats much more summer blockbuster then Oscar contender. In the Oscar contender the drama comes when the good guys are frustrated becuase they just missed the villain making his escape - in the summer blockbuster the hero races up to the roof tops and starts jumping from building to building until he manages to catch up to the waggons and make a heroic leap that just barely catches the last waggon before it pulls out of range.
Admittedly very occasionally you see something thats trying to be both (3:10 to Yuma).
My feelings on 4e? Well I've been excited about it for a while now, but I dunno. The more I look at it, the more I can't shake feeling a little disillusioned. I like the characters having a little more weight behind them at the front--but now that I've gotten a look at some of their daily and encounter abilities the video game really shows through. So I can hit them really hard once per encounter? Really? Why just once? I mean I know how to, right? What exactly keeps me from doing it again--oh I can't because it's a rule. Oh wow.
Lots of things work like that and there's not so much as a nod toward explaining it.
The gulf between PCs and NPCs, between hit points and...I dunno, wounds or anything tangible, the huge difference between what a monster should be because of it's description and what the stats make it out to be because it lives in a place that's too high level for you. The overwhelming lack of ecology or flavor text in the Monster Manual.
I really want to love this game. I love the core setting they've made for it and a lot of the fresh ideas that have gone into it. The jury is still out mind you. I haven't come close to reading everything and have only run it once. That said, the jury is poorly inclined toward the defendant and is in a bit of a hangin' mood.
|
|
I'm with you, Grimcleaver.
I've read through the 3 books now. I like about 2 and 1/2 of them.
The DMG is awesome. The first part of the DMG on how to run a game is the best I've ever seen. It's got great info in there for a new DM and some good reminders for folks who've done it for years. I really liked it.
The MM is ok. I like the stat blocks - more playable as is. I like giving the monsters roles from the get go so you can just know their tactics immediately. I like some of the uniqueness of the monster abilities, gives them some crunchy flavor. But I agree with you that some of the ecology stuff isn't there. Or maybe I'm just spoiled by Paizo's outstanding job with Monsters.
The PHB I'm about 50-50 on. The combat session is well laid out and I like alot of the changes that they've made. The 1-1-1 movement is a compromise I'm ok with and the new system of Standard->Move->Minor->Free really works well in my mind. I could easily explain it. I love the low level magic items that have additional powers. Good flavor. The races are servicable.
The classes section of the PHB is what's got me concerned. The at-will/encounter/daily power MMO style just feels... odd. I dunno about it yet. Going to have to try it out. And the arbitrary 11th/21st level cut offs feel, well, arbitrary.
I honestly would have been more happy with "DnD Saga Edition" - How far they went with SW:Saga was far enough.
You know, I bet someone could really do gangbusters by coming up with an alternate class system closer to 3.5, and putting that out. The MMO classes is one big item people seem to be having problems with.
So what's the over/under set at? 7? 8? Or will WotC be sold off by Hasbro and whoever buys them automatically do a new edition in 5 years or so?In 10 years when 5e comes outYour naivety is cute. Other then that, thanks for sharing.
Little Vito says odds are 2:1 we will be playing RPGs with our minds while we work in the space mines for our insect overlords in 2015.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The classes section of the PHB is what's got me concerned. The at-will/encounter/daily power MMO style just feels... odd. I dunno about it yet.
The powers seem a little bland to me. So many of them are do some damage and something else cool, except the amount of damage doesn't really vary, so it feels like there's less thought in deciding which power to use. I would've liked to have seen greater variety in the powers, like a cleric power that gives allies a hefty bonus to defenses but doesn't allow the cleric to make an attack. Another idea would be to have magic missile give a +10 to hit but do a small amount of damage. That would make it a great option for killing minions or delivering powers that are tacked on to a basic ranged attack.
I am hopeful that the core books are intentionally vanilla variations on the basic mechanics to set a baseline and that subsequent books build upon and expand those vanilla mechanics. The fact that they are going to be treating the splat books as core supports that theory.
Of course, this strategy will only add to the incomplete-core-books complaint, but given that I bought the core rules supplements in 3e and intend to buy the core rules supplements in 4e, I am not bothered by this. In fact, I see it as a good thing because it implies that we will have splatbooks that are more heavily integrated into the core books, which means they will be less blocky add-ons and more interesting refinements.
The classes section of the PHB is what's got me concerned. The at-will/encounter/daily power MMO style just feels... odd. I dunno about it yet.
The powers seem a little bland to me. So many of them are do some damage and something else cool, except the amount of damage doesn't really vary, so it feels like there's less thought in deciding which power to use...
Don't call it bland -- call it play-balanced.
Fair and balanced. Yeah, that's the ticket! 4e is the Fox News of roleplaying :P
Dunno if it counts as a gut reaction but I DMd my first game with the full rules last night. It was fun.
Combat was a bit slow, I hope to get through more encounters in the future. Being new to the rules was a factor, as was intoxication. Also we have played a lot of DDM which led some folks to overanalyze things and try to plan out their moves well in advance. That made it all the sweeter when they implemented their 18 point plan only to find that the kobolds started shifting all over the place :)
I am a tweaker, I like to fiddle with builds and such. They don't have to be insanely optimized but finding obscure synergies can be satisfying. From that point of view there is a much smaller toolbox than in the later days of 3.5 but what there is is much better balanced which takes off some of the stress of trying to avoid 'suboptimal' choices and lets the DM worry less about stomping on overpowered PCs. We will see if it lasts.
The powers seem a little bland to me. So many of them are do some damage and something else cool, except the amount of damage doesn't really vary, so it feels like there's less thought in deciding which power to use. I would've liked to have seen greater variety in the powers, like a cleric power that gives allies a hefty bonus to defenses but doesn't allow the cleric to make an attack. Another idea would be to have magic missile give a +10 to hit but do a small amount of damage. That would make it a great option for killing minions or delivering powers that are tacked on to a basic ranged attack.
The classes section of the PHB is what's got me concerned. The at-will/encounter/daily power MMO style just feels... odd. I dunno about it yet.
Well we'll see what will be but I'm kind of nervous with your approach. As it stands things are play balanced and I fear that some of what you are advocating is going to turn the game back into one where one player starts optimizing and then the others feel they have to follow suit and soon the players and the DM are in an arms race.
Oddly enough I'm actually really good at min maxing my monsters but its hell on prep time. I can min max a monster through the roof but I need to swap out their feats and often repick their gear and such. It can take hours. I'm not sure I want to go back to that now that its been removed.
So I guess I have no problem with new powers and such but I sure hope they choose carefully and have the balls to erratta stuff thats actually overpowered.
...There does seem to be a lack of support for games that are not combat based, both in powers and in the attitude presented in the books. I dislike a lot of the tone of the writers when they are discussing things that are not 'bash down the door, kill the monsters'. They seem to project a dislike for other styles of gaming and that is not a good thing for the developers to have. For instance, I don't see how a pure intrigue game would work under 4E...
...In the end, I think the success of any given group with 4E will depend soley on the type of game they enjoy. If it's combat heavy this system looks awesome. If not, I think it will be very suboptimal.
Really?
I'm honestly pumped about this whole angle due to the skill challenge system. I'm actually tempted to go back and look at some of Logues Ebberon adventures and convert some of the scenes into skill challenges.
That said I think that things like skill challenges probably work best with something of a 'pulp' or blockbuster feel. Trying to figure out how to get through the crowded city square and onto the back of the waggon caravan thats pulling out of town at high speed, that sort of thing.
The system emphasizes doing stuff thats much more summer blockbuster then Oscar contender. In the Oscar contender the drama comes when the good guys are frustrated becuase they just missed the villain making his escape - in the summer blockbuster the hero races up to the roof tops and starts jumping from building to building until he manages to catch up to the waggons and make a heroic leap that just barely catches the last waggon before it pulls out of range.
Admittedly very occasionally you see something thats trying to be both (3:10 to Yuma).
Really. It's my first impression. It could well be wrong, but that's the feel I get.
The game looks like it plays very very well to action scenes - even your examples are action scenes. It does not look like it will support more subtle areas of adventuring - a horror scene where combat is not an option, for instance, or an investigation. I'm not saying that this is bad, should I be correct, just that it strikes me.
I love the skill challenge system, but it's been in other games before and those games have had more robust skill systems with more options than 4E has, so I don't know if it alone can mechanically support differing gaming styles.
Oh my GOD! It all makes sense now. So, what HD & role is O'Reilly?
Mind flayer thrall of course. It's the only way to get ahead in broadcasting.
It's easy to create encounters because they've removed pretty much all creativity from the process. And thanks to the much expanded entry size, it's actually going to be a real pain in the ass to write up custom created encounters -- WOTC is going to sell more pre-made adventures than ever.I really don't see this. The 3e MM has stock stats for critters - the 4e has stock stats for critters. In 3e there are rules and guidelines to alter critters - in 4e there are rules and guidelines to alter critters.
So I can create custom encounters in both 3e and 4e.
The bigger issue for me is that the new books strip the DM of all his traditional authority. The DM is no longer the judge of the rules, the referee. Now the DM is expected to consult with and defer to players on rules issues. The magic items are now in the PHB, which essentially signals that the DM no longer has any authority over what items are available.Again, I do not see this at all. The GM can still do everything in 4e that was done in 3e. As for magic items - just because they are in the PHB does not mean that the players have the right to buy what they want.
I think 4E has done an amazing job of making the DM's role much simpler and easier, but at the same time have made it far less rewarding. Now the DM is little more than a tournament score keeper who rolls for the monsters. It's a position with little or no reward, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to play using it. Wearing the Viking Hat used to be the DM's trade-off for always having to lose. Now the DM just gets to lose and listen to players piss and moan about how unfair and bad he is if he doesn't give them everything they want.I really do not know where you are getting this from at all. There are no rules or mechanisms in 4e that actually change the role of the GM. The GM is still running the game and can set the limits and difficulty as he or she sees fit....
Personally, if you are that displeased with the prospect of being a DM I highly doubt that it was the 4e mechanic that got you there. Some people just don't have a taste for being the dungeonmaster, god knows that it requires a lot more responsibility. I would definitely prefer to play myself but I do enjoy DMing occasionally because I get a sense of enjoyment watching the players getting by various challenges and solving problems that I already know the solutions for. It's fun. No rules edition will ever remove that and as far as authority is concerned I think that comes down to the group you play with. If players in any groups I've been a part of completely ignored the frame work the DM has set up then they probably wouldn't be playing for long. It really just comes down to personal preference and how you like to play. It's an RPG so use the stuff you like and ignore what you don't or modify it to suit you. I've done plenty of that since the 1e days.
That's funny, I always though Rule Zero was "Have Fun."
Which nobody in this thread seems to be doing.
It's a game. Some of us like the old one, some of us like the new one, some of us like both.
QFT.
As ever, Mistress Lilith imparts wisdom.
Here's to hoping the "your edition sucks, no yours does" arguments come to an end on these boards.
Dead on Lilith. I can't imagine that a lot of the people on the messageboards are having any fun at all. It's an endless series of complaints. Play the way you want and enjoy yourselves.
Dead on Lilith. I can't imagine that a lot of the people on the messageboards are having any fun at all. It's an endless series of complaints. Play the way you want and enjoy yourselves.
You don't understand defiler. Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
I haven't gotten to look at the 4e books myself yet as none of my local stores have it on the shelves. That said, I am in wholehearted agreement with Sebastion that I am tired of the non stop 4e/3e war that every thread on the issue devolves into. For those who wanted 4e, it sounds like the game has far exceeded your expectations and for that I am glad. I am 100% a pro 3P guy, but I want 4e to be as good for you guys as you want and think it to be. Mostly I just want these messageboards to become civil again. It is completely exhausting dealing with 4e fans showing up in every 3P thread to crap on the system and players and it is equally exhausting dealing with 3P fans showing up in every 4e thread to crap on the system and players.
Anyway, when I finally have a chance to look at the 4e books I will post an actual gut reaction. I do hope that fans of both systems can coexist on these boards. Glad the game is living up to your guys expectations.
Thank you for that post. I have not been over to the Pathfinder board for some time and i hope the folks causing trouble there will soon stop. 3e is no longer my game of choice but i respect those for whom it still is the game of choice.
I don't care who plays what as long as people play and enjoy themselves.
Yeah, same here. My buddy said that some people on sites are using the terms '3tard' and '4ron' as insults toward the opposing faction. I
I can't wait until it all dies down and people can just enjoy what they enjoy instead of the constant jabs and prodding.
Exactly, whatever you are playing stick to it. That's what keeps our hobby alive. Don't complain about WotC or any other company producing a product that has been modified, upgraded, etc. No game will ever be perfect or include everything you want it to have. Things that don't evolve die and I like the fact that RPGs have become popular again. I've been playing for 25 years and won't ever give it up. It would be a truly sad day if I were to walk into a hobby or book store and don't see a D&D badge on the shelf.
The core books are nicely done. The artwork is first rate. The over all look is bright. The organization is much better. If you like a simplified game system, this is the one for you....until you get to the Powers of each class. This type of system isn't for me. It's more like a superhero game than an adventure game. Your abilities don't increase because your knowledge or experience does, its because you get access to new POWERS. Sure, it's a way of looking at things, but the basic assumption MAKES this a different approach and therefore a different game. I'm not going to call down the wrath of EVIL gods on those who like 4e. Just not my cup of tea.
The books ARE pretty though. :)
You wrote, "It's more like a superhero game than an adventure game." Do you mean, its more like a superhero game than a fantasy game? Superheroes go on adventures all the time. I feel that a d20 superhero rpg is on the way.
I'm only up to the fighter entry in the PHB so still long ways to go. A couple things have bugged me so far but overall it seems a pretty solid game.
I'm not a big fan of miniatures and all the clutter that comes with them, but mechanically things look sound thus far. Since I haven't even gotten to the DMG or MM yet I can't say I'm ready to run a game, but after reading a big chunk of the PHB I'd definitely be willing to give playing it a go if someone else in my group was to step up.
(btw, as an obsessive writer of Class Acts articles I can already see some ways to "improve and tweak" various elements so I'll probably send some emails off to the DDI once I get a decent grasp of the rules :) )
I can't say I'll be abandoning 3.5/pathfinder for 4e, but it's not the apocalypse I feared either (based upon some of the comments from folks who were paying more attention to the spoilers that have been leaking the last few months than I was).
|
Do I get bonus points if I manage to convert this thread from a simmering flame war about 4e into a full on flame war about politics?
Obama sucks!
I've got about half-way through the PHB. The classes look interesting, and I quite like the design philosophy (based around each class having the the same number, but different, special powers/abilities/spells) but it does feel quite WoW/BoNS too (not a complaint, but an observation). I haven't looked in detail at the powers (there are a lot of the them!) so I can't really say how they will play. But it does seem, as others have said, a solid and interesting game. What I have found surprising is hopw many of the changes being made as part of the Pathfinder Alphas seems highly reminiscent of 4e. I like the skill system, which condenses skills appropriately, and the feats looked quite good too (a minor thing, but learning languages is now a feat, which I liked a lot). Rather disliked the level cap (30 - after that you meet some sort of epic destiny and disappear) and the presentation of the class powers is a bit unfriendly. There seems a lot of emphasis on play using miniatures, but that bothers me little as I do that anyway.
It does look like a game I would like to play, but it seems slightly limited in terms of character design. I haven't played it yet, but would like to give it a go.
I'm only up to the fighter entry in the PHB so still long ways to go. A couple things have bugged me so far but overall it seems a pretty solid game.
I'm not a big fan of miniatures and all the clutter that comes with them, but mechanically things look sound thus far. Since I haven't even gotten to the DMG or MM yet I can't say I'm ready to run a game, but after reading a big chunk of the PHB I'd definitely be willing to give playing it a go if someone else in my group was to step up.
(btw, as an obsessive writer of Class Acts articles I can already see some ways to "improve and tweak" various elements so I'll probably send some emails off to the DDI once I get a decent grasp of the rules :) )
I can't say I'll be abandoning 3.5/pathfinder for 4e, but it's not the apocalypse I feared either (based upon some of the comments from folks who were paying more attention to the spoilers that have been leaking the last few months than I was).
I'll say I agree with others that the 4E DMG is the best one I've ever read. Definitely check it out!
Also, Class Acts was one of my favorite articles in Dragon, and I'm excited to see its first return at Dragon's new home. Read those rules and submit more! I need me some Class Acts! :)
|
|
My feelings on 4e? Well I've been excited about it for a while now, but I dunno. The more I look at it, the more I can't shake feeling a little disillusioned. I like the characters having a little more weight behind them at the front--but now that I've gotten a look at some of their daily and encounter abilities the video game really shows through. So I can hit them really hard once per encounter? Really? Why just once? I mean I know how to, right? What exactly keeps me from doing it again--oh I can't because it's a rule. Oh wow.
Lots of things work like that and there's not so much as a nod toward explaining it.
The gulf between PCs and NPCs, between hit points and...I dunno, wounds or anything tangible, the huge difference between what a monster should be because of it's description and what the stats make it out to be because it lives in a place that's too high level for you. The overwhelming lack of ecology or flavor text in the Monster Manual.
I really want to love this game. I love the core setting they've made for it and a lot of the fresh ideas that have gone into it. The jury is still out mind you. I haven't come close to reading everything and have only run it once. That said, the jury is poorly inclined toward the defendant and is in a bit of a hangin' mood.
I have to agree with you Grimcleaver. I played the WWGD demo and the video game influence really shows. It's like a glowing neon sign that says "I'm a video game on paper!" All it's really missing is leveling up during combat and save game locations. Hit points as morale instead of physical damage is a paradigm of the game that I really can't embrace. I guess everyone in the 4E world now dies from poor morale instead of being ripped to shreads or suffering the effect of potent magic or breath weapons. Also, the monsters you encounter at 1st level seem to have boatloads of hp, high AC, and defenses. This leads to PC's getting the crud kicked out of them on a regualr basis, and all fights becoming 10-15 round grindfests where everyone spams their at will powers after the first 3 rounds. It gets a big fat F for speeding up combats and making them more interesting. Any fight that lasts over 8 round gets really boring and frustrating really fast.
Hit points as morale instead of physical damage is a paradigm of the game that I really can't embrace.
To be fair, though, if you look at the 1E AD&D DMG description of hit points, it specifically says hit points aren't just physical damage, but luck, ability to turn potentially lethal blows into non-lethal ones, etc. It's never been HP = physical damage.