Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons

Rate this topic


Prometheus98876

Recommended Posts

I have not gotten around to trying the latest version of this game, and quite frankly from what I have seen I do not think that I want to. It looks a lot like WOTC are now catering to the more lame sort of Mini-Maxing wargamer type of player than the serious roleplayers, the mechanics I have seen certainly seem to suggest this anyway.

Has anyone on here actually tried it yet, if so got any thoughts on it that you think I might find useful? Reasons why I should fork out for the books, reasons I should?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't played it myself, but I live in a house with someone who has, and he seems to think that it's basically D&D: the MMORPG. The rules have a very "unfinished" feel to them and there just aren't a lot of options for someone who has gone through 3.0 and 3.5 and is used to lots of interesting and complex gameplay.

From what I've seen, some of the changes are good--but there are enough not-good changes that I don't really think it's worth buying the books. My overall impression is of a buggy computer game that was shipped early because the management didn't have the balls to push back the release far enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that is the impression that I have gotten from some of the reviews I have seen for it so far.

I think calling it a computer game seems fair enough - apparently you need DnD Insider to play it effectively - which is apparently crappy web-based software.

Some people are even claiming its not really Dungeons and Dragons anymore. Well maybe its not much like 3E anymore, but it seems a lot more like the first DnD, you know the sort that openly claimed to be a wargame? Overall it seems much more catered to wargamers than good roleplayers, though I will reserve my definite judgement on that for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played a one-shot if it and didn't care for it. The system seems too homogenized and streamlined to the point of offering very little variation in character builds. I'll stick with 3.5 + Homebrew fixes.

That is what I am leaning towards doing. 3.5 is a fairly good system really, though it has a few bugs (eg it is a bit too easy for Mini-Maxers to abuse), but they are mostly easy problems to patch. Really I dont see the need for another edition at all, not yet anyway. Unless of course they are actually trying to turn DnD back into a wargame...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda like 4th edition so far, although I haven't had much of a chance to play it because we don't know many people who like RPGs here. But yeah, one big plus is that they made all non-spellcasting classes much more active in terms of their abilities, so you can do a lot more now than just using standard attacks. I kinda like it that way, and also spellcasters don't have spell limitations on their most basic spells anymore, so you can always use some kind of attack. I thought it made it more fun to play at first level.

Also, it's normal that it has less options than 3.0 /3.5 because there are tons less expansion books. It is a shame they removed some classes, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't played 4.0. My friends reviewed it to be between ok and bad. To be honest, I've always thought D&D was more of a table top-combat simulator than a role-playing game. Level-based advancement never made sense to me. I prefer a la carte xp progression; I think it leads to well rounded characters. I also like the simplicity of D10 and percentile systems with their ability to grade rolls - its nice to have some middle ground between success and "Sweet! I rolled a twenty!".

I prefer White Wolf's World of Darkness system. I'm thinking about using it to run a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game. I've played Legend of the Five Rings in the past and I like the system. Right now my gaming group is playing Dark Heresy. It's a sci-fi/fantasy game based on Warhammer 40,000. So far we really like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st Edition Steve? Somewhere in my attic I have a copy of Chainmail, would that be the “0” edition?

True, they weren't labeled "first edition"--at the time there was "Basic" and "Advanced." 2nd edition came out sometime in the late 80s IIRC, that would have made Advanced the First Edition.

I have no idea what "Chainmail" was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gamer-fu is superior! I also have Advanced Dungeons and Dragons sourcebooks hanging around here. Heck, my roommate has an ancient copy of the DMG with the horrible picture of the demon on it.

Chainmail is the wargame that preceded D&D. (Or D&D grew out of it.) IIRC it was first created by some bored Army types--gaming is still popular with the military because it's a fun hobby that requires little in the way of electricity, hardware or contact with the outside world.

I will say that there are some good points about 4th ed--spellcasting classes are now more balanced with non-spellcasters. However, this also means that it's harder to play something spectacular. In many ways it does resemble 2nd ed more than 3rd.

I also find level-based advancement somewhat absurd, but I can't stand White Wolf games in any incarnation. I've *tried* playing them. They annoy the crap out of me. So I prefer Mutants and Masterminds (which is d20 point-based, it's an awesome system) or Savage Worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, that's a hard one to answer.

1.) Character creation is incredibly complicated and unsystematic (this isn't so big of a problem for the players, but as the GM it is murderous)

2.) Advancement is amazingly slow and boring

3.) Each system comes heavily laden with a "canon" setting that squashes attempts at creativity mercilessly, in my mind largely because you're supposed to be some kind of superhuman being, but you're ALWAYS a big fish in a pond full of ENORMOUS fish so it doesn't make any difference!

4.) Ranges on attributes are incredibly narrow and ill-defined

5.) all activities are *incredibly* random due to the way successes are counted

6.) there are two or three functional character builds and anything else will get your character beaten like a red-headed stepchild

And before you complain that I don't know what I'm talking about, I've played Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Aberrant AND Exalted. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I am surprised, I'm also sure you know what bothers you.

I tend to think that power level problems are always the GM's fault. My gripes were about the "alignment"/morality system. I have some specific, geeky gripes with Werewolf, Changeling, Promethean and Mage. I had fun with Exalted, even though it was over the top.

I've seen some good adaptations to D20 recently, specifically the "Saga" system used in Star Wars... I'll wright more when I have time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, White Wolf's attempt at an alignment system seems to be completely incoherent and was usually ignored by the people I played with, ergo my lack of complaint in that area.

Also, we're totally 'jacking this thread, dude.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4th Edition? Ha! I'll be using my 2nd Edition AD&D books until they disintegrate. For some reason WOTC wants all of their games to feel like Magic: the Gathering. Bad move.

Well it is good to see someone gets to play 2E still :lol: I have not done so for ages, mostly due to lack of others that want to play it over 3E...not that I have bothered looking too hard mind you as I havent RPed that much anyway for ages.

I do think 2E was in many ways a better game, though I have a slight tendency to prefer 3E, its does fix a lot of lame stuff from 2e. Nothing good House Rules couldnt fix, but still.

Have you actually tried 3E? If so, Id love to hear why you choose to still play 2E...Im presuming for the usual reasons....

Also, it's normal that it has less options than 3.0 /3.5 because there are tons less expansion books. It is a shame they removed some classes, though...

Like the Sorceror? Well Im glad they removed that personally, I don;t think it was a very good class, and the Monk was arguably a little broken in the wrong hands (more so than the other classes could be that is). But remind me, what classes have they taken out? And does it indicate which might come back anywhere? Or does WOTC say which?

By the way, the original Dungeons and Dragons product actually required Chainmail to play at all, as it used Chainmail combat rules, which it did not include.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, White Wolf's attempt at an alignment system seems to be completely incoherent and was usually ignored by the people I played with, ergo my lack of complaint in that area.

Also, we're totally 'jacking this thread, dude.

Hehe, personally I do not mind, the White Wolf stuff was interesting as I do not know much about it anyway.

It is hard to imagine it being a lot worse than DnD's morally reversed, idiotically restrictive system, up to 3rd anyway. Can anyone say if its any better in 4E?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the Sorceror? Well Im glad they removed that personally, I don;t think it was a very good class, and the Monk was arguably a little broken in the wrong hands (more so than the other classes could be that is). But remind me, what classes have they taken out? And does it indicate which might come back anywhere? Or does WOTC say which?

Sorcerer, Monk, Barbarian, Druid and Bard are all kaput, we're left with Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Ranger, Paladin and the new Warlord which is kind of like a big, beefy Bard. There are rumors that they're planning to bring the "more complex" classes back with later books, but I'm not holding my breath.

Due to the way spellcasting classes work now, Wizard basically *is* Sorcerer. Spell memorization is gone.

They also changed the alignment system from the old 9 alignment standard to five alignments: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil. It's a little annoying at present because the monster manual contains *no* good creatures of *any* kind, and it completely forks up the old D&D planar canon which was based heavily on the alignment system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, Bards/Druids were analogous to multiclass (Figher or Rogue+Sorcerer)/(Ranger+Cleric). I'm a little sad to see them gone, but if I want the flavor I'd just multicass (assuming that's still possible in 4th ed). I HATED spell memorization, so I'm glad to hear that's gone.

I was always a fan of Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil characters. I'm sad to see them go, too.

Hehe, personally I do not mind, the White Wolf stuff was interesting as I do not know much about it anyway.

Read on for the simplest comprehensive explanation of White Wolf's "alignment" system I can give:

"Alignment" in WW is now a dual Virtue/Vice selection based on the traditional "seven deadly sins" and a list of what WW considers to be seven positive character traits, including "faith" and "hope". Loyalty to either virtue or vice refreshes the character's "willpower" points, which are spent to gain bonuses on some tests.

This combines with a 10-level morality system. At level ten, "selfish thoughts/actions" are likely to reduce a character's morality. At Morality 1 only things like serial mass murder are of concern to the character. Most characters start at morality seven. Characters who drop below this level risk gaining a "derangement", or psychosis, each time it drops.

That's all just for lowly humans. Once you add a Vampire, Werewolf or Mage template to your character, your 10-level "Morality" score changes. New restrictions are put in place while others are removed. For instance, Werewolves are free to engage in the wholesale slaughter of humans so long as they have a weak justification, while vampires lose morality for consuming each other's souls. The lower a Vampire's morality, the sleepier he gets during the day.

Obviously, pages and pages are devoted to the game mechanics. I appreciate WW's attempt to flesh all of it out, but it gets ridiculous.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no longer possible to multi-class, either. Granted, there are some ways that you can take on abilities from other classes, and there aren't that many differences *between* classes any more, but there's no official multi-classing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorcerer, Monk, Barbarian, Druid and Bard are all kaput, we're left with Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Ranger, Paladin and the new Warlord which is kind of like a big, beefy Bard. There are rumors that they're planning to bring the "more complex" classes back with later books, but I'm not holding my breath.

Due to the way spellcasting classes work now, Wizard basically *is* Sorcerer. Spell memorization is gone.

They also changed the alignment system from the old 9 alignment standard to five alignments: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil. It's a little annoying at present because the monster manual contains *no* good creatures of *any* kind, and it completely forks up the old D&D planar canon which was based heavily on the alignment system.

Well those will all come back in later PHBs I am told, hopefully the Sorcerer will not be as lame as in 3e, it was a weak, boring class really.

Spell memorization is not totally gone from what I have heard, some Wizard Powers for instance must be memorized still...though possibly I have heard incorrectly.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You heard incorrectly. There are Rituals now, which require you to find a book containing the ritual in order to use them, but otherwise require no memorization. Those encompass your out-of-combat functionality spells like Teleport and Knock. Like all other classes, Wizards have a list of powers they choose when they gain levels. There are several different types of powers: at will powers, which are weak but can be used whenever you like, Encounter powers, which can be used once per encounter, (they refresh after a short rest) and daily powers which can be used once per day (they refresh after an extended rest).

There's no memorization of anything. Wizards are basically sorcerers now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hhm...and they claim Sorcerors will come back..scoff. I dont see them having much of a role to play anymore.

I think I will decide to avoid the whole thing, it just sounds too limited, and actually a little idiotic in some of the ways it does things. Thanks for all the feedback anyway folks :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...