My Final Verdict on 4E

[Singularity]

Well, it's a nice system, and the art in the books is pretty. It opens up a number of combat features as class powers that were a little more difficult to perform in the past. It is a fun game to play, but it has two fatal flaws. The first flaw is that it is a bit of a one-trick-pony. Character options are so utterly balanced that it feels like you can neither optimize characters, nor can you create a piece of crap. Class abilities have been replaced with powers, and those seem limiting, rather than giving you the power create the concept you want.

The other fatal flaw is that the system is not truly open. The GSL is more of a threat to publishers than it is an enticement. This tells me that not only is Wizards not interested in continuing the idea of community based rules evolution, but they are very likely trying to kill interest in open gaming and will discontinue the GSL at some point while offering nothing with which to replace it.

I've decided that while I may play some 4E pickup games, I'm actually far more interested in supporting Pathfinder for my fantasy games and True20 for everything else.

Sorry 4E, but you just aren't what I'm looking for.

[obryn]

I think 4e is more or less exactly what my players want out of D&D - heavy on the fun, tactical wahoo stuff. :)

My players are a very casual group, and that's basically what they wanted out of 3e, even when I tried to steer it in a more serious direction. As a result, 4e feels like just a big improvement on the 3e base, without all the zany crap like 5-classed characters.

(With that said, we had a very deep Arcana Evolved game that lasted about 2-1/2 years, but I think I only have 2 of the same players now. My group rotates a lot, and their playstyles with it.)

We play several different games, though, including Star Wars Saga and WFRP. I don't need one system to try and account for all of the play styles we enjoy; I'd rather play narrow-casted RPGs which emphasize one kind of play and try to do it well.

-O

[Name Lips]

I agree that there are few options, and little room for min-maxing. And I'm using min-max the good way, where if you want your character to be a two tower shield wielding half elf with a collection of defensive spells, it's possible to find rules for it and construct it somehow. By "minimizing" some things and "maximizing" others.

You're allowed to have an interesting and unique character, but all of that is fluff and flavor text that you wrote yourself as "background" and none of it will effect your character at all in terms of actual play and statistics.

On the other hand, it's only a matter of time before that gap is filled with a multitude of feats, powers, and rituals from new sourcebooks, house rules, and 3rd party stuff (I'm sure they're not all going to bail). It's only a matter of time before we have the option glut that 3e has.

I think I'm going to just sit back and enjoy the simplicity while it lasts, and enjoy the fact that Major Meyhem will finally be unable to build the uber-characters he's known for in my group. See, we've given up on specialization and options and min-maxing, but we've also given up on ineffective characters and munchkins.

[Trainz]

I find 4th ed very fun, but also very limiting. It's hard to have a character concept in mind, and then use the rules to make it happen.

I am also looking forward to Pathfinder.

[Limper]

I find 4th ed very fun, but also very limiting. It's hard to have a character concept in mind, and then use the rules to make it happen.

See that sound absolutely horrible IMO.

I am also looking forward to Pathfinder.

Hey look we agree on something!

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Every previous edition of DnD that has come out I've enjoyed reading the books, more or less from cover to cover. I *loved* 3e.

But 4e leaves me completely cold. I can't even get up an enough interst to read more than a few pages. It doesn't feel like DnD to me.

Maybe I've hit that "old fogey" point?

Personally, I really prefer True20 and would like to see it developed and the kinks worked out.

[Name Lips]

Every previous edition of DnD that has come out I've enjoyed reading the books, more or less from cover to cover. I *loved* 3e.

But 4e leaves me completely cold. I can't even get up an enough interst to read more than a few pages. It doesn't feel like DnD to me.

Maybe I've hit that "old fogey" point?

Personally, I really prefer True20 and would like to see it developed and the kinks worked out.

The 4e DMG is actually very good. If you're wondering where all of the "roleplaying" stuff is, it's in there. The PHB is just dry rules.

[Singularity]

Every previous edition of DnD that has come out I've enjoyed reading the books, more or less from cover to cover. I *loved* 3e.

But 4e leaves me completely cold. I can't even get up an enough interst to read more than a few pages. It doesn't feel like DnD to me.

Maybe I've hit that "old fogey" point?

Personally, I really prefer True20 and would like to see it developed and the kinks worked out.

You know, one of the things I don't particularly care for about the 4E books is that the language seems a little condescending, though I didn't feel talked down to at all with 3.x. It's like 2nd edition all over again.

[Kyle Voltti]

4E is like a nice engine in a crap body. it's a Veron engine in a pinto body.

[Singularity]

4E is like a nice engine in a crap body. it's a Veron engine in a pinto body.

I don't know, I think maybe it's kind of like Anna Nicole Smith.

[Sobek]

Character options are so utterly balanced that it feels like you can neither optimize characters, nor can you create a piece of crap.
This is a design goal of 4e. I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike it. Just be aware that you are saying WotC did exactly what they set out to do (blandness aside). While I like a certain range of system mastery to factor in, I think I'm in the "feature, not bug" camp. Give me some balanced powers that are representative of their levels, then let me use tactics to gain superiority.

The other fatal flaw is that the system is not truly open. The GSL is more of a threat to publishers than it is an enticement. This tells me that not only is Wizards not interested in continuing the idea of community based rules evolution, but they are very likely trying to kill interest in open gaming and will discontinue the GSL at some point while offering nothing with which to replace it.
This isn't a complaint about the system, though. It may be a very valid complaint against the company -- and I abandoned D&D in the early 1990s, in part, because of TSR's draconic IP policies, so I'm in no position to throw stones. It isn't a fair comment about the system.

All that said, I don't yet have an opinion on 4e. I'd like to run one, full adventure before deciding what I think. There are elements that I think will probably please me, but there are also some bits that I'm not so sure about (sometimes, these overlap). Right now, we're finishing up my 3.5 campaign.

All I can say is that I hate 3.5. It has become one of my least favorite systems, ever, at least as a GM. I'm a bit more lenient when it comes to being on the other side of the screen. My current campaign was intended to bring closure to the home brew world I started over 20 years ago. It is also giving one of the players a chance to bring resolution to an interesting character concept that seems to have a knack for getting into short-lived campaigns. All the rest of the players say they love their characters, too. If the campaign didn't have those stakes, I would have ended it over a year ago.

If 4e doesn't please me, I'd say it's on to nWoD, Aces & Eights, Savage Worlds, or back to 1e. Probably in that order of preferrence.

Shit, I can't even stand 3.5 enough right now to stat up a single relic sword for one of the PCs. Let the mother fucker burn.

[obryn]

Shit, I can't even stand 3.5 enough right now to stat up a single relic sword for one of the PCs. Let the mother fucker burn.
I'm not quite at that point yet, but after a few years running Arcana Evolved (where I didn't even have tools like HeroForge and MonsterForge to help me out, and where - when I needed Chorrim Warmains, I had to stat those fuckers out by hand), I got to the point where the only 3.5 I wanted to run was with pre-made stuff.

So, I ran Expedition to the Demonweb Pits with some old friends and had a ball. No writing required on my part. Yay?

I also ran a Wilderlands campaign that was mostly patched-together Dungeon Crawl Classics. Okay for a while, but it got old.

Star Wars Saga Edition is great - it's light enough that NPC design isn't a chore. And it has good Beast creation rules, if they're a bit skimpy. Regardless, it was a delight to create a campaign for it.

4e's hitting the same groove for me. It might be the "new shiny" effect, but mostly I think it's the way it empowers DMs. Simple encounter design, simple monster creation guidelines, no straitjackets that NPCs and PCs have to use exactly the same rules, and a blank slate for me to make new stuff... It's pretty damn appealing.

-O

[doc]

I don't know, I think maybe it's kind of like Anna Nicole Smith.

It's not quite that dead yet

[Singularity]

It's not quite that dead yet

Are you sure? I've now talked to a few store owners who say that they've had more preorders for the Pathfinder beta than they had sales of 4th edition. Has it not occurred to anyone that this whole business about them selling through their first print run has just been hype?

[obryn]

Are you sure? I've now talked to a few store owners who say that they've had more preorders for the Pathfinder beta than they had sales of 4th edition. Has it not occurred to anyone that this whole business about them selling through their first print run has just been hype?
Only if the WSJ was in on it.

-O

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Haven't played 4E yet, but I have to say from what I'm reading it's already won me over. It seems players have far more options in combat other than I swing, I hit. I swing, I miss.

Plus I keep finding these hidden treasures, like the fact that magical weapons on critical hits do 1Dx per plus! That is so freaking cool! Now instead of a golfbag full of magical weapons, players will be excited to have a good one that has a decent bonus.

I also like the fact they've incorporated chase rules in 4E. I just skimmed them, but they seem workable. Part of the reason that retreat hasn't been an option for many is that the DM or players just don't know how to handle a fleeing opponent. I know just by my experience with the New World of Darkness, a chase can be the most exciting part of an evening's gaming session. And that's as it should be - it's always one of the most exciting parts of a movie.

[Sojourner Judas]

I'm still on the fence so far. The PHB is okay, but doesn't really set me on fire. I haven't gotten any of the other books yet.

Yeah it's pretty miniatures (or at least grids and placeholders) geared. I don't have a problem with that, as we were using Lego men for years just to help plan out battles.

I might like it better once I pick up the DMG and have a look at the planes in detail. I'll probably pick up the monster book last, because the entries I've seen so far look much sparser than prior editions and that takes the fun out of a monster book for me.

[doc]

The phb is a bit dull and full of tables, but I like the monster manuel

[Singularity]

The other thing that irritates me about the PHB is the fact that it is actually condescending. In that way, it's like 2nd edition all over again.

[Sojourner Judas]

Condescending? Or intent on attracting newer, younger players to revitalize the hobby? It's a fine line.

[Singularity]

Condescending? Or intent on attracting newer, younger players to revitalize the hobby? It's a fine line.

Yes to both, though I don't think that most younger players even like it to the extent that they did it.

[obryn]

I might like it better once I pick up the DMG and have a look at the planes in detail. I'll probably pick up the monster book last, because the entries I've seen so far look much sparser than prior editions and that takes the fun out of a monster book for me.
The planar cosmology seems pretty polarizing for people who like planar adventures. Me, I don't care about it, since I can count on two fingers the amount of planar adventures I've run, and only one of those used the Great Wheel cosmology.

All I can say is, it seems workable. I like the Feywild and the Shadowfell, particularly the former. Then again, I love amoral & alien faeriekind... so much cooler than 3e fey. The Astral Sea and Elemental Chaos seem workable. I think it manages to make the outer planes fantastical enough without mashing it all into some weird alignment symmetry.

As for the monster manual - yeah, the entries are sparser than I like. 3.5's were scant compared to 2e, and 4e is even more minimal - although much of the information is nicely presented in Monster Knowledge check results. But yeah, it's not nearly as fun to read through as previous editions were. I expect that upcoming Dragon articles will flesh them out more fully. (This has already started happening for kobolds & goblins.)

The other thing that irritates me about the PHB is the fact that it is actually condescending. In that way, it's like 2nd edition all over again.
:befuddled:

I don't get that sense at all, really. It's a lot more direct than 3e was; it's written more like a technical document or rulebook than previous editions. I think anything else is projecting.

-O

[Name Lips]

I think they wrote it in plain, unambiguous, simple language for the simple reason of avoiding the rule confusion rampant in 3.x.

[Sobek]

The phb is a bit dull and full of tables, but I like the monster manuel
I finally got my books yesterday. I love the monster manual. I expected not to, but I really do. There's some cool stuff in there.

[Bagpuss]

Reading it as a DM I love it, reading as a player at the moment I'm not so fussed, but I haven't had a chance to actually play it yet.

[obryn]

I started Keep on the Shadowfell last night for my group. Although combat took a while, I expect it will speed up vastly.

The party had a dwarf warlord, a dwarf fighter, a gnome ranger, a halfling rogue, and a tiefling warlock. Heavy on strikers, light on ... everything else, really.

The first combat went pretty decently, all things considered. The ranger figured out how vulnerable he is if he puts his neck on the line, and the whole party decided they hate kobolds. The kobold shifting power was used to great effect; they were shifting away from danger, then running away, then running back to mob different targets. Pretty cool, overall. :) The guy playing the ranger got a 20 on his first death save, so got to become conscious again - he loved that part.

They had a great time in Winterhaven and found out a few things that they wanted to know about. Hung out, got drunk, and had their second kobold fight after they headed out.

This one went a lot better for the party. For one thing, the halfling rogue was deadly. Seriously, she was doing 18 points of damage per attack with her dagger. This time, nobody dropped, but the halfling came close.

I had a very good time. It wasn't as smooth as it could have been, but then again, this was the first time for the players with these specific characters, the first time for me running kobolds, and the first time for two of my players on 4e at all. I expect everything will run better before long. :) Even with it taking a while, my players got into it and had a great time.

-O

[Trainz]

That's our impression too Obryn. I play an elven ranger and we have an halfling rogue. Strikers STRIKE.

I think your party composition shows great promise, although you will get those "damn" moments in specific encounters...

[obryn]

That's our impression too Obryn. I play an elven ranger and we have an halfling rogue. Strikers STRIKE.

I think your party composition shows great promise, although you will get those "damn" moments in specific encounters...
In theory, we also have a Dragonborn paladin and an Eladrin wizard. :) I kind of enforced a "no doubling up on classes" rule for the first round of characters.

And even with clerics being kinda cool, nobody decided to play one. Huh!

In practice, we're usually at 5-6 players every session. Sometimes we have 7, and I expect that will get rocky. Still, it's a breeze to increase the opposition appropriately. I've already made notes for every encounter on what to do if there's 6 or 7 players.

I forgot to mention that the fighter was getting a little frustrated. :) I mean, kobolds are specifically designed to not let him use his sticky mojo.

-O

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

The other thing that irritates me about the PHB is the fact that it is actually condescending. In that way, it's like 2nd edition all over again.

I don't see that, man. It seems that there are a few stock criticisms that are floating around about the game. This is one of them and the other is "it's just an MMORPG!!!". As to that canard, from what I've read so far it sounds like it's an improvement if anything.

That's not to say 4E is perfect. I dislike the fact that they kept out 3 longtime core classes for the sake of a shameless money grab. The new license agreement is scaring off potential partners and turning them into competitors. And there's a few other nitpicks I might have. But overall, I'm ready for the switch. I loved 3E, but like that leftover cake a week after your birthday, it has started to get a little stale and unappetizing.

[Limper]

I don't see that, man. It seems that there are a few stock criticisms that are floating around about the game. This is one of them and the other is "it's just an MMORPG!!!". As to that canard, from what I've read so far it sounds like it's an improvement if anything.

That's not to say 4E is perfect. I dislike the fact that they kept out 3 longtime core classes for the sake of a shameless money grab. The new license agreement is scaring off potential partners and turning them into competitors. And there's a few other nitpicks I might have. But overall, I'm ready for the switch. I loved 3E, but like that leftover cake a week after your birthday, it has started to get a little stale and unappetizing.

Dink was right... you are a big fag in denial.

[obryn]

That's not to say 4E is perfect. I dislike the fact that they kept out 3 longtime core classes for the sake of a shameless money grab.
Well, the new classes are pretty good, and I can see how they fit in the game.

I like the warlord quite a lot. I'm very glad he's around.

Warlocks work okay - the fey pact warlord in my game seems like it plays a lot differently than every other character. She was having a great time with it, too.

Missing a bard doesn't bother me... Seriously, it's the redheaded stepchild of D&D classes. It was a crazy proto-prestige class in 1e, worthless in 2e, puzzling in 3e, and will hopefully actually be good once they come out with PHB2. As it stands, a Warlord can take their place very easily - and not be lame while doing it.

Barbarians were in 1e's Unearthed Arcana, out of 2e, back in 3e, and now gone again. For now. It's like they only exist on odd-numbered iterations of the game.

The new license agreement is scaring off potential partners and turning them into competitors.
Yes, this makes me a sad panda. It's so damn short-sighted I can't stand it. I understand and accept that WotC wants to see certain kinds of products to support their core book sales, but the GSL has a few too many landmines for serious publishers.

I loved 3E, but like that leftover cake a week after your birthday, it has started to get a little stale and unappetizing.
Ditto, as was my group. Even the frustrated fighter's player said he liked it better than 3.5 at the moment.

-O

[Sojourner Judas]

Yeah, that license is... well, it's good that Ryan Dancey isn't with the company anymore, because he'd goddamn spontaneously combust reading that.

[Random Encounter]

I wish I had a chance to play 4e as our 3.5 game is dragging with 3 players that don't know the rules and are not very interested in reading them. That leaves me and the other rules guru at the table to explain every option they have in combat as the DM is running a modual and meta gaming his monster tactics a bit.
As far as character customization and optimization I like 3.5 because that's the kind of gamer I am. If I were in a group of other players that all knew they rules to a moderate degree and just needed the occasional assistance with leveling I wouldn't want to switch.
But for my current group I think the hold-your-hand and limited number of abilities (powers) in combat will make things a lot easier on our newer players rules wise and let us all get on with just playing the game.

[Kilmore]

Perhaps there will be a need for a new Advanced Dungeons & Dragons?

[Random Encounter]

Perhaps there will be a need for a new Advanced Dungeons & Dragons?

I was thinking something similar but I doubt it will be required.
WotC has said they plan to release a new Player's handbook every year and that they will fill in the missing classes in those books. Besides classes ,I'm sure there will be more rituals, feats, player races and new optional rules to allow them to ease a bit more complexity into the game a peice at a time.
Right now with no splat books and just coming off 3.5 with it's tons of official and 3rd party suppliments makes our options seem very limited, and they are, but that's not a problem with the rules set as much as it is a factor of the rules being new. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what they do with the game from this point.

[doc]

I was thinking something similar but I doubt it will be required.
WotC has said they plan to release a new Player's handbook every year and that they will fill in the missing classes in those books. Besides classes ,I'm sure there will be more rituals, feats, player races and new optional rules to allow them to ease a bit more complexity into the game a peice at a time.
Right now with no splat books and just coming off 3.5 with it's tons of official and 3rd party suppliments makes our options seem very limited, and they are, but that's not a problem with the rules set as much as it is a factor of the rules being new. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what they do with the game from this point.

Have they started to convert 3e monsters to 4e yet ? I need a spectrial Wizard

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Dink was right... you are a big fag in denial.

Nah, that was Leo you're thinking of. I was just the guy Dink wanted to kill barehanded. :D

[Singularity]

Nah, that was Leo you're thinking of. I was just the guy Dink wanted to kill barehanded. :D

King. One of those Northcott wanted to kill barehanded.

[Random Encounter]

I had the chance this weekend to really sit down and nit pick my way through the Players Handbook, not quite cover to cover yet but most of it, I think, it's hard to say because I kept skipping around to look up a definition or rule.
But I did look through it with an eye toward things I found interesting, odd (good , bad or just different) or wrong. I actually started taking notes and thought this would be a good place to paste my random thoughts about 4E for discussion.

First, Multiclassing. I think that using feats to first gain a class ability and then more feats to swap powers could work very well if you want to swap in a couple powers to give your character the right flavor of a mixed class character like a fighter that knows a few spells or a rogue that wants to have some archery/2-weapon fighting powers.
And the ability to pick up a Paragon Path of a class you have the multiclass feat for looks like it would work for anyone looking for the versatility of multiclassing as you still gain powers in your main class while gaining the paragon powers of your multiclass path.
Unless you wanted to multiclass into Warlock. All three of the paragon paths for warlocks have class abilities and powers that assume you have the Warlock's Curse class ability but in a huge oversight the multiclass feat doesn't give you access to this class ability instead giving you access to the at will power for the chosen pact which could be nice but doesn't set you up to take other powers or the paragon paths like the other multiclass feats do.
I kind of wish that the Cleric feat gave you the divine channel ability but made you take a feat to get a power to use it on as it's worthless alone, that way my multiclass cleric could take the divine feat for her chosen deity.

Speaking of paragon paths, the fighter paragon path Swordmaster has a path feature called Steel Grace that when making a charge lets you use containing strike or Reaping Strike instead of a basic attack. Except there is no power called containing strike listed in the book that I can find, it's not an at-will fighter power like Reaping strike is.

I thought it was a little odd, but not exceptionally so, that fighters don't start proficient in plate armor. Paladin's start with plate but not martial ranged weapons. I guess a warrior going for the heavy armor build would have the prereqs for the feat (Str 15, Con 15) and would take it if he thought it was worth it. Plate doesn't seem that much better than scale armor, being only 1AC better and suffer a -2 check penalty. But some magic armor only comes in plate and if you want more options on what to wear if you find magic armor from a published adventure or if the DM is randomizing treasure somewhat.

I like the idea of treasure received as quest rewards being very useful for the characters and hand picked for them, but I think random items found in treasure hoards should be more random so the players aren't always finding just what they asked for or need all the time. I wonder if anyone has a random treasure generator or at least random magic item generator on the web yet.

Speaking of magic armor could the rules for masterwork armor be more vague? I mean I think after jumping back and forth between the armor section and magic armor section I think I understand. Once you have armor with a +4 or +6 bonus respectively that armor can made from one of the masterwork materials mentioned in the armor section and you can only find that armor as magical armor. But since the price of it being made of these materials is included in the price of the magical armor does that mean you don't ever find magical armor of that level NOT made of a special material unless the party enchanter enchants a lesser armor type? I guess if you wanted to be a dick as a DM you could give one party member +6 Spiritmail (AC 18) and someone else +6 Chainmail (AC 12) and tell them they have equal treasure because the item values are the same.

In the section on Vision and Light they tell you how far out from a light source you have bright light conditions but how far beyond that do dim light conditions exist? I can see darkness starting right at the edge of the bright light I guess but especially around a campfire there seems to be a few feet where you get some light but mostly shadows and it isn't quite pitch black yet. Maybe another square outside the radius is dim light before it fades to complete darkness? I guess that would make a fine house rule. :tongue:

I like the weapon proficiency bonus weapon based characters get. At first I thought it screwed the warlock, wizard and ranged blaster clerics since they don't use weapons for their attacks and there is no such thing as proficiency bonuses with implements. But then I thought about it and realized that casters are rarely attacking AC, instead their attacks go after the other 3 defenses which on average tend to be lower than AC for most monsters. So the proficiency bonus is just a way to offset the additional modifiers AC gets over the other defensive traits.

I love the passive perception check idea. It lets the DM know what your characters do and do not see without asking for rolls all the time. But on the other hand if a player says he is being alert or specifically looks for something and rolls less than 10 on the d20 he could miss something he would have noticed had he not looked for it. In combat this is easy to fix as active perception checks take an action and grant a roll and there's a good chance you just won't gain any more information than your passive check granted you but also a chance that you will roll high enough to get more info.

The layout of the book is okay but there are some things I think should have been spelled out to avoid confusion even if you can figure it out using basic logic. I've met too many people to whom logic is not so basic.

-Area/Close attacks and crits -Area/Close attacks roll an attack for every target but damage once. But it's not spelled out in the rules how to handle a critical hit on the ones that you crit if you roll the same damage for the group. Since crits just grant max damage the ones you crit take max possible and the others take what you rolled. If you have a magic weapon/implement I would say roll the extra damage from critting once for all the creatures you crit with that attack if you were lucky enough to crit more than one.
Keeping in mind that feats that grant a bonus on a crit only work with multiple target attacks if the first attack you roll is a crit, additional targets being crit won't trigger the feat. This keeps the feat balanced so it's not more powerful for powers that roll more attack rolls and therefore have a greater chance of getting at least one crit.

-Temporary Hit Points - The section on temporary hit points says "If you get temporary hit points from different sources, use the higher value as your temporary hit point total instead of adding the values together"
Which to me reads that you never add temp hp to your current total but replace your current total with new temp hp if the new hp total would be higher otherwise ignore new temp hp gained.
But I could see someone reading "different sources" and adding new temp hitpoints every time they gain them from the same power. In the Players Handbook this would be from the Warlock Infernal pact power granting temp hp every time a cursed target drops or from the Lifedrinker magic weapon which grants temp hp when you use the weapon to gain a killing blow. In both situations the temp hp come from "the same source" so you could read that they are additive. While it's not how I read it I can see it needs clarification before it causes a rule war.

-Different damage types on one attack - The rules for handling multiple types of damage on a single attack, in case a creature has resistance or immunity to one of the types but not both, are in the character creation section back on page 55 of the PHB but not in the combat rules section under damage types or Resistance/Vulnerability. The rule exists but since it is not in the rules section where you would be looking it up if the situation came up it could very easily be overlooked. Even a page reference back to the powers section would help there.

-Marks and powers affecting marked targets - Marks are a special kind of status effect on a creature because it matters who applied it. A creature has to attack the person that marked it to avoid taking a -2 attack penalty. So far so good. Except that some of the powers that are usable on a marked target don't say it has to be a target you marked, just that it has to be marked. This is stupid, I know that when they say "whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy" they mean "marked by you" but, because they don't explicitly state it, someone out there is going to try gaining these extra attacks when a creature the paladin marked attacks the paladin while standing next to the warrior and claim that by the rules the creature just has to be marked.

[FeatsofClay]

Missing a bard doesn't bother me... Seriously, it's the redheaded stepchild of D&D classes. It was a crazy proto-prestige class in 1e, worthless in 2e, puzzling in 3e, and will hopefully actually be good once they come out with PHB2. As it stands, a Warlord can take their place very easily - and not be lame while doing it.-O

I played under 3e with one bard and 3.5 with one bard. Both times I was another class and the bard was run by a layer at the table. Both times they were deadly, capable and made the party what it was.

My giant sample size of 2 may haveaffected this, but I never understood the bardhate or bardlamecalling or...bard confusion.

Butr I find I feel SO differently from many gamers. :)

[Harry]

I played under 3e with one bard and 3.5 with one bard. Both times I was another class and the bard was run by a layer at the table. Both times they were deadly, capable and made the party what it was.

My giant sample size of 2 may haveaffected this, but I never understood the bardhate or bardlamecalling or...bard confusion.

Butr I find I feel SO differently from many gamers. :)

Ditto. In all of my games in the last almost three years, every party has had a Bard. 3.x and C&C. Of course, the C&C Bard is very old school, but we had one done up as a 3.x style Bard as well.

Our latest game, which should go live next weekend, also has a Bard. A Half-Orc Bard. I think he's going to be a Henny Youngman type, and if you don't laugh at him he's gonna whack ya.

[Sobek]

I played under 3e with one bard and 3.5 with one bard. Both times I was another class and the bard was run by a layer at the table. Both times they were deadly, capable and made the party what it was.

My giant sample size of 2 may haveaffected this, but I never understood the bardhate or bardlamecalling or...bard confusion.

Butr I find I feel SO differently from many gamers. :)
My experience is that bards are best used to trigger various curative wands. And that it's best to not leave them unattended.

Again, my sample size of one may be a factor. I always wanted to try one, myself and see if it was a stylistic thing.

[FeatsofClay]

Again, my sample size of one may be a factor. I always wanted to try one, myself and see if it was a stylistic thing.

One of the most effective and brutal characters I ever played with was Boroo.

We had a 9-10 lvl half-orc barbarian (Visious, loyal, serious interested in wealth. Wealth being represented to him as livestock), a cleric (with superhuman stat rolls, a war god inclination and no concern for his listed alignment), aescetic sorcerer(my character. No Prestige class I just played him as an ascetic. Refused wealth, ate little, wore less. Loved him), and Boroo who the Barbarian and sorcerer considered the most awesome thing ever because he knew everything and was charming as shit.

He guided us through a land of giants with grace and precision deadliness.

[obryn]

The only bard in any of my games died in his 2nd session.

-O

[Name Lips]

My bard was essentially a wand-monkey. Sure, he had cure wands. But he had the most fun with his wand of Invisibility 10' radius. Instant stealth for the whole party...

But I'm sure there will be a 4e bard.

[Radu]

My hope is that the 4e bard will actually be GOOD at SOMETHING instead of sucking/being mediocre/passable at a lot of different things. Bards worked well in my experience only if the rest of your party compensated for them, they were designed/built on solid lines, and/or they were played well with an eye to the few things they actually did okay at.

Frankly, I have bardhate because I love bards and they suck. I don't like classes that I have to fight in order to make them effective at the game table (paladin, bard, and monk-- I'm looking at you!)

[Sojourner Judas]

Having picked up the DMG now, I can agree that it's a vast improvement on prior efforts. The practice of not assuming anyone's an existing gamer works to the book's advantage more than it did in the PHB, and this looks like an actually useful book more than its predecessors.

[Name Lips]

The DMG is full of actual useful information on running games, dealing with players, and crafting adventures. I like it. :)

[obryn]

The DMG is full of actual useful information on running games, dealing with players, and crafting adventures. I like it. :)
But there's no random harlot table. :(

-O

[FeatsofClay]

But there's no random harlot table. :(

-O

SFW http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/06/the_12_harlots_of_the_dungeons_dragons_random_harl .php again, completely SFW despite the URL.

[Singularity]

But there's no random harlot table. :(

-O

Hey, I still miss the random noises table from the 1E DMG.

DM: Rolls dice
Player: Uh oh, what's he up to?
DM: You hear hear a strange creaking sound from somewhere up ahead and.... [tosses dice] maniacal laughing from somewhere down the hall.
Player: Didn't we just clear out the hall where the laughing is coming from?
DM: Hey, if you're not playing by Gary's rules, you're not really playing D&D.