Other Games D&D 4E - like it or hate it? - Page 2

Nightwish · 07-17-2008, 09:42 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

**Rausch** · 07-20-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwish

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, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

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, 04:34 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, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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, 06:29 PM

On an unrelated note, I just won an auction for an original copy of The Dragon magazine - Issue #1 !!!!! W00T!!!!!

View Poll Results: What do you think of 4E?
It's the best thing since sliced bread!	0	0%
Pretty cool, but it could be better.	0	0%
There are a few good points, but I mostly don't care for it.	2	33.33%
It's pure suckage. If this doesn't resurrect Gygax as a ghoul, nothing will!	1	16.67%
D&D? Really? Time to move out of your mom's basement, dude!	3	50.00%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

07-17-2008, 09:42 PM
Nightwish 2006 Snipe Hunting Champion Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: A van down by the river! Casino cash: $10004900	D&D 4E - like it or hate it? 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
Posts: 7,013

07-20-2008, 04:34 PM	#18
Amnorix In BB I trust Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, Mass. Casino cash: $10029808	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. __________________ "I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 43,125

07-20-2008, 06:29 PM	#21
Braincase Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Pond> Me <Barn Casino cash: $11298284	On an unrelated note, I just won an auction for an original copy of The Dragon magazine - Issue #1 !!!!! W00T!!!!! __________________ BrainCase
Posts: 15,429