PDA

View Full Version : Other Games D&D 4E - like it or hate it?


Nightwish
07-17-2008, 10:42 PM
I haven't played it yet. For that matter, it's only been a few months ago that I finally decided to make the move from 2nd Edition to 3.5. Mostly, I haven't been hearing many good things about 4E, though. Have any of our pnp Planeteers tried it out yet?

*poll to follow

Braincase
07-18-2008, 06:51 AM
Had an Aussie buddy of mine give me the .pdf's. I've heard alot of complaints about it from the gyus I know in the IT world that still play. I doubt I'll play that version, when I've got a lot of older stuff around, as well as the 3.5 d20 rules.

Fishpicker
07-18-2008, 04:26 PM
4th edition sucks but I'm judging the books solely by their covers. The rulebooks and supplements used to have outstanding cover art. the most recent rulebook makes me think that the Wizards RPG Team needs a new art director.

Nightwish
07-18-2008, 04:27 PM
4th edition sucks but I'm judging the books solely by their covers. The rulebooks and supplements used to have outstanding cover art. the most recent rulebook makes me think that the Wizards RPG Team needs a new art director.
I vote for Caldwell.

Bowser
07-18-2008, 04:29 PM
I think Amnorix has played this, and is a big fan.

I was a big D&D geek back in the day; I had no idea the game was still going strong.

Fishpicker
07-18-2008, 04:54 PM
I vote for Caldwell.

I liked Jeff Easley's paintings the most. Clyde Caldwell paints women alot better though. Dragora's Dungeon is my favorite of Caldwell's paintings. Larry Elmore did alot of great work for D&D covers also.

Braincase
07-18-2008, 05:01 PM
I think Amnorix has played this, and is a big fan.

I was a big D&D geek back in the day; I had no idea the game was still going strong.

Midnight Douchebag is our "usol", we couldn't have a game without him. He brags about all the girls he's doing, but in reality, he's playing D&D with us. Dude runs two characters, an 8th level Magic User that he role-plays with a lisp, and a gay assassin, that he always jokes around with callin' him an Ass-Ass-IN! (Punctuated with a pelvic thrust that just about knocked over my freakin' Dr. Pepper last Friday night).

Bowser
07-18-2008, 05:13 PM
Midnight Douchebag is our "usol", we couldn't have a game without him. He brags about all the girls he's doing, but in reality, he's playing D&D with us. Dude runs two characters, an 8th level Magic User that he role-plays with a lisp, and a gay assassin, that he always jokes around with callin' him an Ass-Ass-IN! (Punctuated with a pelvic thrust that just about knocked over my freakin' Dr. Pepper last Friday night).

LMAO

Nightwish
07-18-2008, 06:44 PM
Midnight Douchebag is our "usol", we couldn't have a game without him. He brags about all the girls he's doing, but in reality, he's playing D&D with us. Dude runs two characters, an 8th level Magic User that he role-plays with a lisp, and a gay assassin, that he always jokes around with callin' him an Ass-Ass-IN! (Punctuated with a pelvic thrust that just about knocked over my freakin' Dr. Pepper last Friday night).
ROFL

I usually play female characters myself, but since I'm hetero, I always play them lesbian. Not that we ever go indepth with descriptions of character sex anyway ("I buy a hooker for the evening ... morning comes" - yes, I know there's a pun waiting to be exploited there!), but if a DM ever did get it into his mind to make it more explicit than that, I just couldn't see myself sitting there and describing or imagining my character doing a dude. Of course, if the DM did get it into his mind to make it more explicit than that, I'd probably feel obliged to inform him that women also exist in the real world, then take my leave of the game ... unless the DM is female and hot (yes, they do exist among D&D gamers), in which case it might be fun!

Nightfyre
07-19-2008, 01:00 PM
I've always been a fan of 2.0 personally. My friend is starting up a 3.5 though, so i'll jump into that for sure. From what I've read of 4.0, I didn't like it. I'm not sure how it will actually handle until it's played, though.

Braincase
07-19-2008, 10:34 PM
I've always been a fan of 2.0 personally. My friend is starting up a 3.5 though, so i'll jump into that for sure. From what I've read of 4.0, I didn't like it. I'm not sure how it will actually handle until it's played, though.


Doesn't make a difference which version you play... you always listen at the door.

Nightfyre
07-20-2008, 01:26 PM
Doesn't make a difference which version you play... you always listen at the door.

I usually play chaotic characters, so I really don't, lol. I'd rather just open it and take in the mayhem.

Nightwish
07-20-2008, 02:01 PM
I usually play chaotic characters, so I really don't, lol. I'd rather just open it and take in the mayhem.
As long as your character isn't a rogue!

On a side note, I once DM'd a game where the player running the thief character tried to hide in shadows, forgetting he also carrying the torch!

Braincase
07-20-2008, 04:14 PM
As long as your character isn't a rogue!

On a side note, I once DM'd a game where the player running the thief character tried to hide in shadows, forgetting he also carrying the torch!

I remember running a Viking type, first time I ever played. Prayed to Thor, rolled double-0 and the DM gave my a hammer. Got caught in a dungeon fighting ghouls, and tried to escape through the ceiling. Made a hole just big enough for the hammer and my arm, knocked myself out, became a ghoul...

Nightwish
07-20-2008, 05:01 PM
I remember running a Viking type, first time I ever played. Prayed to Thor, rolled double-0 and the DM gave my a hammer. Got caught in a dungeon fighting ghouls, and tried to escape through the ceiling. Made a hole just big enough for the hammer and my arm, knocked myself out, became a ghoul...
ROFL

Rausch
07-20-2008, 05:12 PM
ROFL

I usually play female characters myself, but since I'm hetero, I always play them lesbian. Not that we ever go indepth with descriptions of character sex anyway

Yeah, 'cause then it'd just be weird...

Amnorix
07-20-2008, 05:26 PM
I've always been a fan of 2.0 personally. My friend is starting up a 3.5 though, so i'll jump into that for sure. From what I've read of 4.0, I didn't like it. I'm not sure how it will actually handle until it's played, though.


2.0 is teh suck. Get thee elsewhere.

Amnorix
07-20-2008, 05:34 PM
4.0 is very, very different.

I can see where some would like 3.0 / 3.5. Some character classes and styles of play are broken in comparison to others. Like some older versions of D&D, it also has rocking magic items that can turn a stinking 5th level into a demi-God if he has the right "stuff", and also suffers (though I love playing them) from the "the Wizard is our God and the rest of us live only to protect him" issue at anything past, say, 7th level.

There are just alot of structural problems with every version of D&D up to 4.0.

4.0 is VERY different, and I can see why people can bitch (and I do it too to some degree). Here are the main differences (in no particular order):

1. magic items are very underpowered compared to prior versions. The main effect of this is that it is the character and his inherent abilities etc. that is most important, not the stuff he carries. A 15th level will kick a 7th level's ass no matter what, even if the 15th level has no magic items at all. That wasn't always true.

2. Everyone has powers and abilities that take some trouble to track. They make it as painless as possible while trying to give everyone something to do other than "I swing my sword".

3. Wizards are much less juicier than they used to be.

4. No class is broken that we've identified in my group as yet.

5. Much more tactical combat system. Forces better strategic and tactical thinking to avoid ass-kicking. Must use battle mat if you plan to have a warlord or the warlord becomes pretty useless.

6. All character classes pretty radically revamped.

2.0 was very different from 1.0, but really just an iteration. 3.0 revamped some stuff while keeping the concepts very similar. 3.5 was just a fix of what was most obviously broken in 3.0 (archers among other things).

4.0 is totally and completely different from everything that went before. It's a much bigger break from the D&D tradition than anything that has gone before it, so it will definitely take some getting used to.

Nightwish
07-20-2008, 05:39 PM
2.0 is teh suck. Get thee elsewhere.
I resisted switching from 2.0 to 3.5 for the longest time. I'm glad I made the switch, though, because there is so much that is better. Admittedly, the combat system kind of bog things down a bit, especially it you play it to the letter with miniatures and grid maps. But mostly everything else is a big improvement. Psionics are a vast improvement. They were a wreck in 2.0. In first edition, psionics were fun, but a mess to calculate, and your character had only the barest chance of being psionic. In 2.0, anybody could be psionic, but they didn't really think out the system well. With 3rd, the psionics are vastly superior.

The main drawback I see to 3.5 (and it's merely a preferential drawback, depending on the type of campaign you like) is that characters become pretty powerful pretty quickly. So if you like power gaming, 3.5 is great, but if you like the slow build, 2.0 is the way to go.

Nightwish
07-20-2008, 05:47 PM
4.0 is totally and completely different from everything that went before. It's a much bigger break from the D&D tradition than anything that has gone before it, so it will definitely take some getting used to.
That's what I've heard from some of the players that have been ambivalent about it. They "liked" it, but didn't like it as D&D. They felt it should have been marketed as some other d20 product using OGL.

Braincase
07-20-2008, 07:29 PM
On an unrelated note, I just won an auction for an original copy of The Dragon magazine - Issue #1 !!!!! W00T!!!!!