PDA

View Full Version : D&D 4th Edition



Manhattan_Project_2000
06-24-2008, 11:58 PM
Has anyone else come across a copy of one of the manuals? What did you think of it?

I think it's horrible. It's barely recognizable: the spell system has been simplified into a number of (boring) powers you can cast either at will, once per encounter, or once per day. And rituals.

Wizards, for example, now hardly get anything from the schools (from a D&D 3/3.5 perspective) of Necromancy, Illusion, Conjuration, Transformation, or Divination. Hope you dig throwing fireballs and casting Mage Armor, because that's all you are going to do.

Oh, and Druids, Barbarians, Sorcerers, Monks, and Bards are no where to be seen. And for some godforsaken reason they left Rangers in there. Warlocks and Warlords are now main basic classes, but no one cares. I also hope you don't like playing as Gnomes or Half Orcs. And Asmodeus is now a god instead of a Devil Lord.

And alignment became stupid.

Good: Freedom and kindness.
Lawful Good: Civilization and order.
Evil: Tyranny and hatred.
Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction.
Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.

Hope you didn't like the other 4 (or 5, depending on whether you differentiate Neutral from True Neutral) alignments. Personally, I loved Chaotic Neutral.

The whole thing just generally angers me to no end.

Lavos
06-25-2008, 12:34 PM
Gah, that sounds terrible. I'll stick with third ed thank you very much. I thank you and your ever expanding brain for this knowledge.

ShadowWalker
06-25-2008, 04:36 PM
Ugh. Third made me wanna sacrifice kittens. I -liked- 2nd ed just fine, there was challenge to the game, and it left a GREAT deal open. Third it took time, but when I started to see 2nd getting mauled in every way possible, I started to see that third wasn't so bad, so I decided to check it out in more detail and I like it. ^^ I have plans on expanding my personal collection more later on. If 4th is that bad already, then what the hell is the point? O.o I swear...Wizards doesn't know what the hell they are doing.

Manhattan_Project_2000
06-25-2008, 07:30 PM
I never really dug 2nd Edition. I was ok with 3rd, and 3.5 was great. 4th appears to be abomination.

Lavos
06-26-2008, 02:20 AM
I never really dug 2nd Edition. I was ok with 3rd, and 3.5 was great. 4th appears to be abomination.

I've only ever played 2nd and 3.5. I like 3.5. Most of it I can understand. Still at a loss on armor.

Manhattan_Project_2000
06-26-2008, 07:07 PM
It's easier then 2ed. AC = 10 +/- any modifiers. That THAC0 stuff was freakishly counter-intuitive.

ShadowWalker
06-27-2008, 09:23 AM
I loved Thaco. ^_^ I didn't like how they did weapons, and specializations and such.

Lavos
06-30-2008, 11:58 PM
I recall THAC0 being confusing, but then again I was 8 years younger.

Akihiko Yamamoto Hozagaki
07-10-2008, 04:38 PM
I tried playing 4th edition and it was more confusing than the other versions :/. I think that's because I'm too used to those versions.

It's basically just D&D dumbed down for a broader audience. Great for those who want to get into the game, terrible for those who have been playing it for a while. I much prefer 3rd ed.

What I hate most is the lack of druids and the alignment system. As MP2K mentioned earlier. There's less of a selection, forcing the player to be exactly one thing. And unless you're a paladin, this is almost completely useless.

Eris
07-10-2008, 06:20 PM
For some reason, 4th edition gives me the same feeling as when a PC game has been ported to console and the controls have been dumbed down to fit a hand controller.

CF Striker
07-10-2008, 09:56 PM
SO...wizards will try to appease by re-introducing the stable characters later...as well as pretty much everything else. Ugh. The "card" system of gain powers as you level up looks ridiculous as well. Isn't divversity what pretigue classes were for? I'll stick to 3.5 and crappy grappling thank, I can put up with inly 1 real flaw in the system.

Sanosuke23
07-23-2008, 07:28 PM
I would start a total noob on 4th so they get the fundamentals of the flow of combat and character creation, but I'd slowly start introducing 3.5 as time went on.

Though I do wanna steal some stuff from 4E, like scaling breath weapon damage for a friend of mine that loves half-dragon.

Still, eff you [email protected] being a base race but Aasimar not existing at all because it's "impossible to make a being made of good interesting and unique." I paraphrased that from the promotional material. Ugh.

Manhattan_Project_2000
07-23-2008, 11:09 PM
I would start a total noob on 4th so they get the fundamentals of the flow of combat and character creation, but I'd slowly start introducing 3.5 as time went on.

Though I do wanna steal some stuff from 4E, like scaling breath weapon damage for a friend of mine that loves half-dragon.

Still, eff you [email protected] being a base race but Aasimar not existing at all because it's "impossible to make a being made of good interesting and unique." I paraphrased that from the promotional material. Ugh.
A greedy chaotic neutral rogue who has to fight against his lawful good ancestor's tendencies. I am now better then WotC.

Also, under the same logic lets do away with Paladins. All they do is kill things for the glory of (insert lawful good deity here), and yell at rogues. It's hardly all that interesting.

Sanosuke23
07-23-2008, 11:21 PM
A greedy chaotic neutral rogue who has to fight against his lawful good ancestor's tendencies. I am now better then WotC.

Also, under the same logic lets do away with Paladins. All they do is kill things for the glory of (insert lawful good deity here), and yell at rogues. It's hardly all that interesting.

That's why 4E Paladin has no alignment restrictions, and they were talking about the fluff for the race.

Not that Tiefling is amazingly thought out.

Manhattan_Project_2000
07-23-2008, 11:28 PM
Well, that's silly (I guess I didn't notice that?). I mean, I'm ok with the Extreme Alignment Paladin Variations in 3.5, but Neutral Paladins would be boring. Sure, kill everything from either extreme, but ehh what's the point. If I wanted to be a True Neutral zealot, I'd be a Druid.

Sanosuke23
07-23-2008, 11:36 PM
Well when you realize they don't smite alignments anymore and basically just make Lightsabers and point at people it becomes kind of cool but totally not a Paladin in the proper sense. I can't help but like anything with a munchkin build generally referred to as "Laser Paladin."

I'm just glad I eyepatched the core books before investing money in it. It really isn't worth the money.

SGI
07-23-2008, 11:55 PM
Well it seems like from my research across the Internet that 4th Edition is the Windows Vista of Tabletop RPGs. I can really understand what WOTC is trying to do with this edition, unfortunately they have tried way to hard to make the game internet friendly while forgetting that the best appeal of tabletop RPGs is the fact that it's a bunch of geeks on a table having a good time.

Well the up side to this is that it may mean people will try out other RPG systems beyond D&D.

39kilowatts
08-21-2008, 01:18 PM
I LOVE the 4th edition RULEBOOKS!!! They've made the game really hard and it's a fun challenge. Being a gnome monk is super cooool! The problem is I don't know ow often I can use those "daily" spells.

Sanosuke23
08-21-2008, 02:29 PM
I LOVE the 4th edition RULEBOOKS!!! They've made the game really hard and it's a fun challenge. Being a gnome monk is super cooool! The problem is I don't know ow often I can use those "daily" spells.

Nice try little troll, but there is no Monk class in 4E.

39kilowatts
08-21-2008, 06:06 PM
Nor is there a gnome in the Player's Handbook, but that's not changing my post. Also Wizards of the Coast will be releasing another book with extra classes like the Monk.

Manhattan_Project_2000
08-21-2008, 07:44 PM
I LOVE the 4th edition RULEBOOKS!!! They've made the game really hard and it's a fun challenge. Being a gnome monk is super cooool! The problem is I don't know ow often I can use those "daily" spells.
I would assume that you can use daily spells daily, unless there's some definition for the word daily that I'm unaware of.

Sanosuke23
08-22-2008, 12:18 AM
Nor is there a gnome in the Player's Handbook, but that's not changing my post. Also Wizards of the Coast will be releasing another book with extra classes like the Monk.

Ah, but Gnome is in the Monster Manual, with the stats for a playable race in the back. That lends more credibility to your attempt to induce rage.

Unfortunately I was suspicious to begin with and succeeded on my Will save to disbelieve. Had you used something like Ranger I'd have had a harder time dismissing you as a troll, given the age of some of the posters here.

Then again, given your sig I doubt you're shooting for the subtle troll.

39kilowatts
08-28-2008, 12:10 AM
If I picked Ranger that'd be no fun. I actually play a Teifling Ranger and he's pretty sweet. I thought the sig was very funny. I think we all need to relax and roll some 20siders. http://rule34.ridetheemu.com/_images/dc01db3c69aa2ba8d4c386ab51bc3af2/150809%20-%20dice%20Die%20inanimate.jpg

wordfarer
09-03-2008, 08:28 AM
The makers did to this version what Citadel did to Warhammer 40k and what video game makers are doing to game engines- everything is ages 4 and up! My friends have played third for six years so perhaps we just developed sentimentality with it. But if the books for third ed. were not in New Mexico we might be playing now. It is frustrating how simplified everything is becoming- the rules and conduct of RPGs (D&D in particular) are not supposed to be like playing basket ball; it is supposed to be the alternative to playing sports! haha
After all of this I am still going to try and get used to the new edition, but only so I can keep exercising my imagination and math.