#6
...but to be fair, these are the Pathfinder forums and a lot of people are here -because- they dislike 4E and are flocking to PFRPG as an alternative to 4E anyway. Just pointin' out...
#3 with me and my group.
#9 and #6
I dislike the new 4.0 rules so much I BORROWED the books rather then buy them. This is from someone who enjoyed Complete Champion mind you... ::sighs:: WotC thou haft forsaken thine fan-base...
I did that too...It's gone to the point where its a WOW board-game rather an actual rpg(even the artwork is similar).And to think I was expecting this to be even better than 3.5...I miss TSR I'll tell you that much
PS: Did anyone else think they would see "click for this ability on the specific menu" written somewhere in the books or is it just me? ;-p :-(
I can't agree. I am a big disliker of WOW and I don't see 4E that way. The abilities are written in a standardized format so that all powers can be read in the same manner whether its a basic attack or a 4th level ranger ability.
The mechanics should be secondary to the roleplay, as the player describes using his skill in his own style.They have reversed spells and saving throws but once again why should that be a problem. Now the mage casts a spell and attacks the opponent with it (reflex(touch attacks), AC(bypassing armour), Will(mental attacks) or Fortitude(endurance attacks).
Finally TSR...they lost the plot, the products became dull and mundane and the fans weren't buying. Or Else TSR would now own WOTC rather than the other way round. Early TSR rocked, later just vanished. Sorry but mooning over the 'Golden Years' won't change the situation now. It's like crying over Beta Max tapes!!!
#9 and #6
I dislike the new 4.0 rules so much I BORROWED the books rather then buy them. This is from someone who enjoyed Complete Champion mind you... ::sighs:: WotC thou haft forsaken thine fan-base...
I did that too...It's gone to the point where its a WOW board-game rather an actual rpg(even the artwork is similar).And to think I was expecting this to be even better than 3.5...I miss TSR I'll tell you that much
PS: Did anyone else think they would see "click for this ability on the specific menu" written somewhere in the books or is it just me? ;-p :-(
I can't agree. I am a big disliker of WOW and I don't see 4E that way. The abilities are written in a standardized format so that all powers can be read in the same manner whether its a basic attack or a 4th level ranger ability.
The mechanics should be secondary to the roleplay, as the player describes using his skill in his own style.They have reversed spells and saving throws but once again why should that be a problem. Now the mage casts a spell and attacks the opponent with it (reflex(touch attacks), AC(bypassing armour), Will(mental attacks) or Fortitude(endurance attacks).
Finally TSR...they lost the plot, the products became dull and mundane and the fans weren't buying. Or Else TSR would now own WOTC rather than the other way round. Early TSR rocked, later just vanished. Sorry but mooning over the 'Golden Years' won't change the situation now. It's like crying over Beta Max tapes!!!
But it seems with this version they are urgying for less roleplay (though I must admit that was always an issue with dnd in general)
Olso TSR; yes they made bad calls,yes they made bad investments leading to their repurchase but they had a few of the best people working on their projects.Point is..Paizo publishing in my humble opinion continues on that same path and spirit,4th edition doesn't.Still it's my personal opinion but this isn't recognizable as DND anymore...If you don't want to cry about the past(apparently I do ;-) sorry about that )try out Pathfinder.PS: Ohmygods!You remember those tapes?! :-)
#6 (borrowed books)
#1 & #4
#3
I'm usually a DM. In 4e I am a player. The DM is new to DMing. I am technically signed up to play all 9 modules, the 3 heroic, paragon and epics released by WotC. We are 1 session into the second heroic module at this point. Keep on the Shadowfell was bad. It didn't help that rules were changing via errata while we were playing it. It was even worse that some of the rules in the module itself didn't match what was found in the PHB. Most of the 4e rulebooks we have were obtained in trade... the modules represent most of what we've spent in actual money.
1/3 of our gaming time goes toward 4e currently, though it sometimes dips to 1/4. The rest is spent on Pathfinder APs in 3.5.
#6
....and we made up played a few a few fights with a few of the characters at various levels...we didn't like the game play either.......in particular the lack of versatility of wizards...what happened to the I have the spell but we need a few hours to rest so i can memorize it...and saving throws.....omg
there were a few redeeming qualities...I like the Warlord class...remeniscent of Marshalls and Dragon Shamans... and I like the concept of At Will abilities....my parties LOVE and USE reserve feats with great frequency... But as a whole ....NOPE...not happening... and THANKS PAIZO....for keeping our game alive....and all you other folks who will continue to support PATHFINDER
#3
and people complain that 4E has done away with necromancers... :P
#4. Reading the PHB made me want to create a character and start playing, however I'm currently DMing a 4E group and haven't had an opportunity to just be a player yet.
and people complain that 4E has done away with necromancers... :P
No kidding.
#4, Though I mainly DM, I would love to play it more often than I have.
#3 and #4 for me. I didn't really like KoS, but I do like the 4th ed rules.
Thread necromancy, by Jove!
But anyway, I'd vote for #6.
Which is pretty interesting, considering that a big fan of World of Warcraft. However, when I play WoW and when I play tabletop RPGs, I'm looking for the system to provide different things. WoW is an intricate tactical wargame where you control one 'miniature,' more or less. Tabletop RPGs are what I use to tell a story -- an ultimately heroic story, but with a lot of intrigue, politicking, and even some sightseeing along the way :).
So they're both fun in different ways, IMO.
Does not surprise me at all actually. There is a strong dichotomy, in Terms of 4Es WoW essence. Its common for people who dislike it to say they dislike it because its WoW but its essentially unheard of for those that like it to say they like it because it reminds them of WoW.
In other words it only reminds you of WoW if you dislike it.
#9
6. Read the core books, I dislike it.
I also just borrowed the books from a guy who is a "completest". Maybe it is because I am too old and set in my ways, but I did not understand nor cared for a lot of it.
-- david
Papa.DRB
#9 Myself
My group has been playing 4th since it came out. We promised ourselves that we would take it to level 10 before deciding what we thought of it. Although the game has some merits, it just doesn't feel very D&D, and 5 out of 7 members of the group prefer 3rd edition.
Of those 7, 3 are DMs (myself included), and of those 3, 2 are planning on switching to Pathfinder when the final edition is released.
It wouldn't be so bland if EVERYTHING in the game wasn't some kind of power card. All of the classes are groupings of powers, magic items give players a smattering of additional random powers, feats are minor "plus" bonuses, except for the rare few that grant you... Yep, even more powers.
Finding that sweet +2 Wand of Whatever, might be cool and flavorful the encounter where you acquire it, but when combat starts its flavor is forgotten and it just gets thrown into the mix with all of the your other powers.
We are 8th level now, and are planning on hitting 10th soon. Hopefully, just in time for the release of Pathfinder.
#6.
If it comes down to it and I find a group, but all they are interested in playing is D&D 4E, I will play it. But I refuse to DM it. I'm only going to buy a handful more of 4E books and then I'm wiping my hands clean of all future releases.
10. My group wanted to try it out, so I bought the PHB. I like it as much as 3.5 I suppose. I've only read what I've needed to to play, never read much about it online, and have a great GM, which is 90% of what you need for a good game.
But it seems with this version they are urgying for less roleplay (though I must admit that was always an issue with dnd in general)
Olso TSR; yes they made bad calls,yes they made bad investments leading to their repurchase but they had a few of the best people working on their projects.Point is..Paizo publishing in my humble opinion continues on that same path and spirit,4th edition doesn't.Still it's my personal opinion but this isn't recognizable as...
I really gotto disagree on this one, the 4th edition PHB and DMG goes a considerable way to describing how a player should be putting the flavour into his character. The DMG describes how to bring the roleplaying into use with the characters Skills which was generally ignored in ealier editions.
The PHB dedicated a page and a half to roleplaying a 4th Edition character to get the player to think of the important questions about the characters morals, attitudes to other players and NPC's.
Little of this depth was attempted in previous editions of the D20 systems. The characters don't have many non-combat powers but previous editions didn't either. The Bard was without doubt the most non-combat character when it came to powers. In 4th edition the non-combat powers can be introduced as Rituals if the player really reckons.
One of my players has a Warlock power that he uses in non- combat encounters so I don't see why a player couldn't invent other non-combat powers if the DM agrees.
CHARM PERSON\MONSTER could easily become a Ritual which once cast is held for an hour and can be discharged with a simple command word. A supplemental on Scribd called Races & Class's by Stromn has created all subsidiary spellcasting specialities ( Necromancer, Illusionist, Enchanter, Conjurer, Transformer ).
6, and some of 3 (quit really early was not a game for me)
But it seems with this version they are urgying for less roleplay (though I must admit that was always an issue with dnd in general)
Olso TSR; yes they made bad calls,yes they made bad investments leading to their repurchase but they had a few of the best people working on their projects.Point is..Paizo publishing in my humble opinion continues on that same path and spirit,4th edition doesn't.Still it's my personal opinion but this isn't recognizable as...I really gotto disagree on this one, the 4th edition PHB and DMG goes a considerable way to describing how a player should be putting the flavour into his character. The DMG describes how to bring the roleplaying into use with the characters Skills which was generally ignored in ealier editions.
The PHB dedicated a page and a half to roleplaying a 4th Edition character to get the player to think of the important questions about the characters morals, attitudes to other players and NPC's.
Little of this depth was attempted in previous editions of the D20 systems. The characters don't have many non-combat powers but previous editions didn't either. The Bard was without doubt the most non-combat character when it came to powers. In 4th edition the non-combat powers can be introduced as Rituals if the player really reckons.
One of my players has a Warlock power that he uses in non- combat encounters so I don't see why a player couldn't invent other non-combat powers if the DM agrees.
CHARM PERSON\MONSTER could easily become a Ritual which once cast is held for an hour and can be discharged with a simple command word. A supplemental on Scribd called Races & Class's by Stromn has created all subsidiary spellcasting specialities ( Necromancer, Illusionist, Enchanter, Conjurer, Transformer ).
Well they did talk about role-playing in earlier editions..just not that much in the first series of core books(PH2 and DMG2-as well as almost all the complete series- are very good and in depth on these matters)
About the Bard I respectfully disagree:there are ways to build the perfect fighting bard(even without a powerful prestige class)And that's exactly where I 'm going at. Players with imagination always build stuff,develop home rules or invent new things...
new players should be helped with more than a few pages and encouraged on active role-playing(and I mean more than just a character background)
I guess I just don't like the whole new power system(and what about those power cards they sell for 4e?)Also I always wanted a more tactical approach to dnd battle but in my opinion how its done really narrows your options(why should I always support the fighter as a mage? or how the modules work by putting you on a very specific path regarding what you should do each level)
Again this is something that you can avoid as a PC or DM, but think about it; why fix something that shouldn't be broken?
And the skill challenges is what I was referring to when I said it has less role-play.It's all too mechanical in this, hence what I said about mmo-buttons.
It is still early..but if they are going for the "100supplements per month" treatment that they did with 3.0 and 3.5 they are not evolving.I understand they have to sell but why wont they take a few lessons from Paizo or Steve jackson games ?
So finally this is too W.O.W. for me and completely non-dnd(as I've known the format to be since adnd first edition) and if I am to invest in a new rpg I would prefer to do so with a GURPS new supplement or something like that.
But you seem enthusiastic and I would play as a PC in a group with someone like you just to say I playtested 4e :)
Definitely going with #6 here. I sat down with the core books, read them through (the MM was easy; just stat blocks and little text), and had no interest in bothering to make a character. My main gaming group was switching up to a short 4e game and I literally didn't find anything I even half-way felt like playing. Fortunately, my personal schedule was changing up and I had to leave the group anyways, so I just chalk it up to fate saving me from wasted time.
I'm not saying anyone else shouldn't play it. The system is ok and has it's merits, but honestly I am a detail freak. If it were up to me, I'd be ADDING skills to 3.5 ed. I spend hours and hours building characters, NPCs, and adventures, and I love it. For me, that's as much part of the game as role-playing. So, 4e just is not for me. For those that enjoy it, I wish you the best. Personally, give me details, multi-classing, and let me roll my own saving throws.
Initially liked it OK. The novelty wore off after about three months of regular play. Still break it out now and again.
Played a 12th level game of 4e the other night, because most of our games had been in the lower levels. The movements of monsters on the battle mat under the control of player's 'powers' was so comical that we quit halfway through the adventure.
4e seems ok at lower levels, though there are aspects that rubbed me the wrong way.
As you go up in levels, the game becomes a sort of farce in my view, where the metagaming aspects and nonsense on the battle mat make it difficult to take the game seriously.
Obviously, ymmv. We have one guy in our group who seems to like it a lot, and my recommendation would be if you have any interest in it at all to simple try it for yourself.
#6 - or, more appropriately, "CLEANSE BY FIRE!" I'll admit there are a number of good ideas in 4e (fey with attitude, useful angels, simplified cosmology, simplified dragon ages, lack of Vancian magic) the execution of the mechanics make them all utterly pointless. D&D is no longer a roleplaying game, it's a minis skirmish game with virtually no abilities (especially on the monster's side) to facilitate anything other than combat. And in combat, well paraphrasing the Incredibles makes my point best - "everyone's special, so now no one is special".
I cannot, will not, forgive the...individuals...at WotC for what they did to D&D, for the removal of Dragon Magazine from print, or for the fracturing of the community that their greed has created. I dropped out of roleplaying circles (save my own home group) as a result of their actions, and only recently heard about Pathfinder and Paizo's efforts. A more welcome ray of light in the dark wilderness has there rarely been (in my life at least). Via La Resistance!
#3
1, 4, and 7 for me.
I like this game. Not all of it, but then what DM doesn't have to houserule SOMETHING they don't like about a system.
What I like:
DMing is fun again. I don't think I realized how much I missed that. Whether it will hold as true for high levels, I'm not sure, but it certainly does for low level play.
All characters get to have something fun to fall back on. The new bard rocks. Sorcerers and Warlocks are just cool. Divine characters get a really cool control type character too in the Invoker.
What I dislike:
I'm not sure I like how they've done druids. I'd like a typed damage that couldn't be instantly healed overnight. Strict reliance on a battlemap grates on me (but I note that 3.5 had this too, at least if you wanted to get the most out of rogues and fighters). Monsters don't have enough ecology/fluff and have become simplistic descriptions with stats.
Can I play this and feel I'm playing D&D -- yes.
#6 - or, more appropriately, "CLEANSE BY FIRE!" I'll admit there are a number of good ideas in 4e (fey with attitude, useful angels, simplified cosmology, simplified dragon ages, lack of Vancian magic) the execution of the mechanics make them all utterly pointless. D&D is no longer a roleplaying game, it's a minis skirmish game with virtually no abilities (especially on the monster's side) to facilitate anything other than combat. And in combat, well paraphrasing the Incredibles makes my point best - "everyone's special, so now no one is special".
I cannot, will not, forgive the...individuals...at WotC for what they did to D&D, for the removal of Dragon Magazine from print, or for the fracturing of the community that their greed has created. I dropped out of roleplaying circles (save my own home group) as a result of their actions, and only recently heard about Pathfinder and Paizo's efforts. A more welcome ray of light in the dark wilderness has there rarely been (in my life at least). Via La Resistance!
Thank you...welcome to Tech-com... ;-P
well they did talk about role-playing in earlier editions..just not that much in the first series of core books(PH2 and DMG2-as well as almost all the complete series- are very good and in...
Id hope you can find someone with my enthusiasm so you might enjoy the game better next time. :)
|
#6
I looked at the PHB. What's the difference between Arcana and Knowledge (Arcana)? Arcana is the skill you need to understand the Power system.
Where have all the spells gone? Long time passes.
I look at a power and what do I see...
Lots of little numbers, staring back at me.
A line or two of flavor text, but no descriptions in sentence form.
For some of them, I thought I was looking at a calculus problem.
I looked at the cleric class a little, expecting to see divinations, and priestly "powers" that could be used outside combat. But everything in the power system has to have a combat effect, apparently. And I looked some through the powers but didn't see anything that didn't have a combat effect, described in a numerical format so alien, they had to devote 3 pages to describing how to read it.
#9, then #6, then #3.
:(
4-Read the core books. Love the game.
Haven't actually played Keep on the Shadowfell but I've run a whole campaign around the setting of Thunderspire Labyrinth and it's wonderful.
The preview material had me going both ways, but ultimately it was the new all-enclusive structure of the core setting that really sold me. All hail the end of the pseudo-Greyhawk.
#3,#6,	
I just can't wrap myself around 4E. I bought the two preview books (which I did find quite interesting), and the KOTS, and none of it stuck to either of my two groups.