It's pretty much official- D&D 4e is now under way.

[obryn]

4e is trash. I'm legitimately surprised that anyone even plays it anymore.
*shrug*

Whatever floats your boat, man.

From top to bottom, I'm enjoying 4e nowadays more than I enjoyed 3.5 during its heyday. It had a rocky start, but from top to bottom, it's meeting all of my needs for a kick-ass Dark Sun game, and I couldn't imagine going back to 3.x.

Now, with that said, I love AD&D 1e almost as much as 4e. I had a blast running it for my friends 2 or 3 years ago after 20ish years off, and I'd run that again in a heartbeat. (Or RC, for that matter, though I'm infinitely more familiar with AD&D.)

-O

[Radu]

I see your Edition Wars discussion and raise you.....

F.A.T.A.L.

:runaway:

[Droid101]

*shrug*

Whatever floats your boat, man.

From top to bottom, I'm enjoying 4e nowadays more than I enjoyed 3.5 during its heyday. It had a rocky start, but from top to bottom, it's meeting all of my needs for a kick-ass Dark Sun game, and I couldn't imagine going back to 3.x.

Now, with that said, I love AD&D 1e almost as much as 4e. I had a blast running it for my friends 2 or 3 years ago after 20ish years off, and I'd run that again in a heartbeat. (Or RC, for that matter, though I'm infinitely more familiar with AD&D.)

-O

It's fine that your opinion is wrong.


:D

[Varaj]

It's fine that your opinion is wrong.


:D

I prefer "I would agree with but then we would both be wrong" :)

[obryn]

It's fine that your opinion is wrong.

:D
It's fine that you want to feel superior by your choice of RPG. You could probably find better, less pathetic ways of asserting your superiority than edition warring, however. ;)

-O

[Snatch]

I prefer "I would agree with but then we would both be wrong" :)

Do two wrongs then make a right?

[Varaj]

Do two wrongs then make a right?

No but three lefts do.

[Snatch]

No but three lefts do.

Dammit! I knew I should have stopped at three!

[Ergeheilalt]

4e is trash. I'm legitimately surprised that anyone even plays it anymore.

D'awwww. Can't rep you.

[hobbiteer]

4e is trash. I'm legitimately surprised that anyone even plays it anymore.

Yeah, my old GMs who I've played with for years always insist on running the latest edition. So, I get stuck with it.

[Glass]

I've played through a short 4e campaign with my old GM(the power-tripping one), I'm not sure if my dislike came from her incompetent running of it or the actual system, but I wasn't too thrilled over it. Too video game-y for my tastes.

[Trainz]

I'm enjoying 4e nowadays more than I enjoyed 3.5 during its heyday.

I'm curious...

What's the highest level you've played 4th ed?

[obryn]

I'm curious...

What's the highest level you've played 4th ed?
19th. I really don't have much of any interest in epic levels. :) Well, maybe a little - I'd like to give it a shot one day - but I'm very happy at Heroic and Paragon.

I think part of the problem with Epic is that WotC has done such an awful job of publishing adventures ... well, in 4e in general, but especially at epic levels. The campaign that made it to 19th for my group was the H-P-E series, and frankly, it's trash. I was spending so much time re-writing those crappy adventures that I just scrapped it and started everything over in Dark Sun.

So you have a lot more Epic experience than I do. Were you happier with the game at Heroic and Paragon?

And out of curiosity - when your group ran at Epic levels, did you guys have the new monster math? Because, lordy, it starts making a huge difference even at Heroic.

-O

[obryn]

I've played through a short 4e campaign with my old GM(the power-tripping one), I'm not sure if my dislike came from her incompetent running of it or the actual system, but I wasn't too thrilled over it. Too video game-y for my tastes.
Can't help you there. :) I can only speak for my own games.

The one I'm running now, I wouldn't call video-gamey... I've had some mystery, political intrigue, army recruitment, mass combat, exploration, and even some dungeon-delving. Heck, we've had a few combat-free sessions, as well. At the moment, I'm taking a page from Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, because Dark Sun has always been a Science Fantasy setting masquerading as a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting. In this case, they're investigating the craft which - unbeknownst to them - brought the Githyanki to Athas before their degeneration into the Gith. They still seem to think it's some kind of temple.

But anyway! Sometimes games and players just aren't a good match. It happens! I'd encourage you to give it a shot with a better GM, but honestly, there's no guarantee you'd enjoy it, even then.

-O

[Trainz]

19th. I really don't have much of any interest in epic levels. :) Well, maybe a little - I'd like to give it a shot one day - but I'm very happy at Heroic and Paragon.

Then avoid Epic like the plague. Like the fucking plague dude. It was such a stupidly, moronic, anti-player dynamic, the experience was so bad that it made me forget what little fun i had at lower levels. If you like 4th ed, and want to continue playing it, NEVER try epic.

I did have fun at heroic levels, I was midly entertained with paragon.

-"So just play heroic dude!"

Why limit myself to heroic when 2nd ed lets me have LOTS of fun at ANY level?

And i fucking hate with a passion that all classes have more or less the same power-mechanic. In previous editions, if you play a caster, you had spell tables, a LOT of fucking choice, and spell mechanics that separated you from the other classes. I want each class to feel very different, to have it's own (simple) mechanic. If I wanted a generic system, I'd play fucking GURPS. Don't destroy what makes D&D D&D.

You know what bud? You just pumped up my anti 4th ed rage an order of magnitude higher than it was. DON'T try to fucking tell me that 4th ed is fun, it's a huge pile of garbage, That's $300+ I'll never see again.

And out of curiosity - when your group ran at Epic levels, did you guys have the new monster math? Because, lordy, it starts making a huge difference even at Heroic.

I have no idea what this "New Monster Math" is and DON'T want you to explain it to me.

[obryn]

And i fucking hate with a passion that all classes have more or less the same power-mechanic. In previous editions, if you play a caster, you had spell tables, a LOT of fucking choice, and spell mechanics that separated you from the other classes. I want each class to feel very different, to have it's own (simple) mechanic. If I wanted a generic system, I'd play fucking GURPS. Don't destroy what makes D&D D&D.
I'd be lying if I'd said the power mechanic bothered me in the first place (it didn't), but there's been some cool development here, too, that I'm sure you don't want to hear about. :D Honestly, though, the in-game reference time while looking up and reading spell lists was my least favorite thing about pre-4e D&D.

You know what bud? You just pumped up my anti 4th ed rage an order of magnitude higher than it was. DON'T try to fucking tell me that 4th ed is fun, it's a huge pile of garbage, That's $300+ I'll never see again.
Whoa, there, cowboy! I'm pretty sure I didn't tell you what you should enjoy. Why should I care? I'm just trying to hold a rational and positive conversation about gaming. Just don't try to tell me it's universally or categorically not fun, because my group and I are having a fantastic time with it. Different groups like different things; there's no news story here.

I have no idea what this "New Monster Math" is and DON'T want you to explain it to me.
Clearly, we've left the point of actual gaming discussion so I wouldn't want to try. :)

-O

[Trainz]

Clearly, we've left the point of actual gaming discussion so I wouldn't want to try. :)

-O

Indeed.

See that foam coming of my mouth/ears/eyes/ass?

All your fault buddy.

[Name Lips]

I want to be able to play a character that is useless in combat and still indispensable to the party. 4e doesn't let me have that option. It's designed entirely around combat balance.

[obryn]

Indeed.

See that foam coming of my mouth/ears/eyes/ass?

All your fault buddy.
I live to serve!

But if you have foam coming out your ass, you may want to get that looked at.

I want to be able to play a character that is useless in combat and still indispensable to the party. 4e doesn't let me have that option. It's designed entirely around combat balance.
This is true! And if it's crucial to your enjoyment to have a non-combatant character, 4e is not the best fit for you.

Now, fortunately, 4e has support for characters who are unconventional in combat, but the basic game philosophy is that non-combat usefulness shouldn't be gained at the expense of in-combat usefulness. Some of the cooler ideas that have come about lately are actual workable Enchanters who use monsters against themselves and the good ol' Lazy/Princess character who doesn't ever attack on their own. It's perfectly possible to have a Wizard now who never makes an attack roll, for example.

None of this meets your concern, I know. :)

-O

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I want to be able to play a character that is useless in combat and still indispensable to the party. 4e doesn't let me have that option. It's designed entirely around combat balance.

And that's one of the reasons why I prefer B/X. Everyone has a role, and it's built around the "adventuring party as a team" concept. I think in general the trend of increasing customization for characters has been detrimental to that concept. I think D&D was ultimately better off without proficiencies, skills, and feats. But I also realize I am in the minority on that.

And more to the point, I don't think D&D is ever going to take away options from players, when the trend going all the way back to AD&D has been to give them more options.

[Hatter]

My experiences were all from the initial release, since I wasn't interested enough to go any further. My impression was that someone forgot to tell the design team that balance via symmetry is boring and all the classes and powers are samey and bland. I've never been bored reading a PHB before, it was a novel experience. The DMG was top-notch though.

[Radu]

I think I'm almost entirely the opposite opinion, Scut.

I don't want to play someone else's concept of what my character is or "should" be. I want to play my character.

I may fill a particular role in the team, and I may embody a certain story-based, mechanical, or cultural archetype, but I want to play MY VERSION of whatever it is.

Recent characters I've played have been halfling cavaliers riding velociraptors (the Cavalier class), human farmhands rising up against injustice (monk), and a half-orc mercenary called to battle by the gods themselves (oracle of battle).

Now, all of those concepts could likely be played in some version in other editions...

but I don't want to play "Fighty the Fighter" and advance along a static class progression. I like to be able to pick what skills to develop and what role in the party to fill based on what I enjoy and the party needs, not what someone else thinks my class should do.

It's what I enjoyed least about earlier editions of DND and 4e as well. I feel very strongly that unless I'm playing up to the expectations of the class progression "chosen" for me, I'm not "really playing" that character, and I hate that. I like playing rangers who aren't archers or two weapon masters. I like playing rogues who are socialites and not backstabbing opportunistic skirmishers. I like playing blaster mages and enchanters and summoners. I like playing paladins who use guns. I like playing barbarians who grapple. I like playing stealthy, infiltration and evasion based bards. As far as I know, none of those are really valid options in more locked in style games, because each of them takes the base archetype and tweaks it.

[cnath.rm]

I like playing rangers who aren't archers or two weapon masters. I like playing rogues who are socialites and not backstabbing opportunistic skirmishers. I like playing blaster mages and enchanters and summoners. I like playing paladins who use guns. I like playing barbarians who grapple. I like playing stealthy, infiltration and evasion based bards. As far as I know, none of those are really valid options in more locked in style games, because each of them takes the base archetype and tweaks it.I'm all for tweaking things... just as long as the rest of the group knows what's up so they can make adjustments if needed. (like the dwarven cleric needing to be up front in armor, seeing as how I went with a ranger in leather instead of a fighter in plate) As long as your char doesn't leave mine hanging in the wind come combat time I've got no problems with him/her. :) On the other hand, if you playing your char means your char leaves mine to die in combat... don't complain if I my char takes yours out later on if they don't happen to die. :D

[Trainz]

I think I'm almost entirely the opposite opinion, Scut.

I don't want to play someone else's concept of what my character is or "should" be. I want to play my character.[snip]

Then what you're looking for are pages 22 and 23 of the 2nd ed DMG, a little thing called Creating Your Own Class. You start with a base class, remove what you don't like from it and replace it with whatever the fuck you want.

[Name Lips]

But you shouldn't have to build a class (in my mind). The base classes should provide enough options and flexibility to build tons of options.

If I want a wizard who is a demonologist, I should be able to come up with something without making a new class from scratch. If I want my fighter to be a crossbow specialist and is worthless as a tank, I should be able to do that. What about a sorcerer who pretends to be a rogue by using silenced spells in lieu of skills (how long can he fool the party!)?

I had an aristocratic fop who fancied himself an adventurer, a cowardly trapmaker, a bard who plays the castanets and taps out his spells in morse code.

My new character is a half-orc bard with Perform: Oratory who tells tales in a deep, bold, Conan-esque style ("Let me tell you tales of HIGH adventure!") He isn't much good in a fight, but is taking the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class, with tons of out of combat abilities (chief of which is his ability to coincidentally produce any item that costs less than his Chronicler level x 100 gp, as though he had thought to buy it at the last town. Exactly the potion or scroll you need, every time!)

I just don't like cookie-cutter classes. I want to know that whatever I'm playing, odds are I'm the only person to have come up with it.

[Space Cadet B^3]

The key to fun gaming is unfocusing on the rules and hand-waving the rest.

[Harry]

nt

[obryn]

I'll be honest, Name Lips, a ton of stuff on your list, I look at and say, "Well, that's great fluff, but it's not something I need or want to be reflected in the system." SWSE broke me of the assumption that a class name is anything other than fluff that can be used or ignored as desired; a class is just a mechanical abstract, and you should pick the one that best-matches what you want to do.

Skills like Perform are another place where I've moved in a different direction. Simply put, I think of that as some great fluff that doesn't need or warrant a mechanical representation. If you want to be a great blacksmith or a skilled flautist, just establish it as part of the character. 4e is very much like old-school D&D in that respect... You might have a background, but I'd rather handle those sorts of things with a combination of role-playing and fiat.

-O

[Janos]

Then what you're looking for are pages 22 and 23 of the 2nd ed DMG, a little thing called Creating Your Own Class. You start with a base class, remove what you don't like from it and replace it with whatever the fuck you want.

That was one of the absolute worst system mechanics created in any version of D&D to date.

Game balance in 2e is always done with a wink and a nod, but that system allowed for so much stupid it just about broke my brain. Any system that the DM has to spend a whole session policing to make sure it won't break anything is poorly thought out. Player's Option still had problems, but was positively saintly in comparison to that crap.

[TiQuinn]

I'll be honest, Name Lips, a ton of stuff on your list, I look at and say, "Well, that's great fluff, but it's not something I need or want to be reflected in the system." SWSE broke me of the assumption that a class name is anything other than fluff that can be used or ignored as desired; a class is just a mechanical abstract, and you should pick the one that best-matches what you want to do.

Skills like Perform are another place where I've moved in a different direction. Simply put, I think of that as some great fluff that doesn't need or warrant a mechanical representation. If you want to be a great blacksmith or a skilled flautist, just establish it as part of the character. 4e is very much like old-school D&D in that respect... You might have a background, but I'd rather handle those sorts of things with a combination of role-playing and fiat.

-O

I agree. On paper, skill checks sound like a great idea for tracking someone's mastery, but in actual play, it's pure tediousness. They don't add to the enjoyment of the game unless somehow it's baked in as something crucial to the completion of a quest or something, but even then skill checks of that nature can become a "Save or Die" type scenarios....i'm thinking a situation such as Knowledge checks to find information that help reveal the story to the players...if the player fails the Knowledge roll, does their not knowing something about the backstory add or take away from the game overall. IMO, it's usually the latter.

[Droid101]

My character is the most skilled blacksmith in the land!

He crafts a sword, so powerful, it will destroy any dragon it slices, in one hit!


PS: 4e still sucks.

[Ascarel]

I agree. On paper, skill checks sound like a great idea for tracking someone's mastery, but in actual play, it's pure tediousness.

99% of that is not in the system, but in the GM's way of handling things.

A die roll is just a contest. This is part of the game because a player will not decide everything he does by fiat.

A good GM should know when to ask for a roll, striking the proper balance between driving the story forward and letting randomness decide.

Rolling everything either create no stories -- because anything can happen -- or too long games -- because the GM waits for the players to roll successes in order to advance the plot. I've had such a GM once. I wanted to strangle him. Worst fucking GM ever.

[obryn]

My character is the most skilled blacksmith in the land!

He crafts a sword, so powerful, it will destroy any dragon it slices, in one hit!
As with all fiat systems, you rely on DM judgment to stamp out douchebaggery. :)

PS: 4e still sucks.
So does your mom!

-O

[Radu]

I think in a discussion of play styles and gm techniques, you're right. In a discussion about systems, I think GM fiat or "a good GM will X" statements don't do much to advance the argument.

Sure, even in something as (nearly) universally hated as Chartmast- I mean Rolemaster, a good GM can really increase enjoyment of that game... but the system itself is still wonky.

Can you give me examples of mechanics you really like in 4e? I'm over my reflex hatred and genuinely interested in what makes this game fun for people, so I can work on incorporating aspects of it in my own game of choice, Pathfinder.

I'm really trying not to Trainz on you, but I'm not far from him in terms of my experiences with 4e.

[Name Lips]

I liked the Skill Challenge system.

[obryn]

Can you give me examples of mechanics you really like in 4e? I'm over my reflex hatred and genuinely interested in what makes this game fun for people, so I can work on incorporating aspects of it in my own game of choice, Pathfinder.

I'm really trying not to Trainz on you, but I'm not far from him in terms of my experiences with 4e.
Sure thing! I'll give it a quick rundown, from both sides of the table...

(1) The action economy and the lack of full-round actions has a broad and wide-reaching impact that can't be ignored. It can make combat a lot more dynamic as a result. This is one of the things I would carry with me to SWSE if I were to pick it back up, and one of the stumbling blocks to my enjoyment of 3.x variants.

(2) There's a more equitable power distribution between casters and non-casters. Casters are less able to completely short-circuit adventures, and non-casters aren't left behind. (I was very soured on Arcana Evolved around 9th or 10th level because its power disparity was simply abysmal. Which is sad, because it's my favorite setting of all time.) This is hugely YMMV - for some people, that sort of spellcasting is the very point of D&D.

(3) Simply put, I think 4e combat is a blast. It's improved in the past year and a half - the fixed monster math and increased character accuracy we've seen lately has severely reduced the grind that was endemic to 4e early on in its run.

(4) The Minion/Standard/Elite/Solo monster distinctions have been very, very handy from my side of the screen. One-shotting big bads isn't nearly as common, and both elites and solos have ways of improving their action economy so they're not useless against PCs. In the same vein, I appreciate that the standard combat involves multiple creatures; that a combat vs. one monster is rather rare; and that the XP budget system actually works, as opposed to the CR/EL system.

(5) Free-form NPC and monster building, focused on the end product - "I want an NPC that does this" - rather than on the building process itself, or building them like a PC. It ensures the math at the end works out, and doesn't worry much about how you got there. This sort of mechanical work was one of the things that soured me on 3.x in general. By the same token, up-leveling and down-leveling monsters is infinitely easier.

(6) F/R/W as defenses, instead of saving throws. I generally prefer for whoever's acting to be the one to roll dice. Also, although it's some bookkeeping, I enjoy being able to apply conditions to monsters or PCs that almost always work, but only work for a short time.

(7) Tighter math on hit points, defenses, attack rolls, skill checks, and damage. It has some down-sides, too, but I think it helps keep more gonzo results away from play.

(8) I really enjoy the way PCs are built. I like having Encounter powers and At-Will powers, not just Dailies, basic attacks, and special maneuvers. The Essentials line and PHB3 added a few variants of the power format, too, so there are some classes new that work very differently from those in the original PHB... So much so that it's caused some nerd-rage and edition-like sniping within the 4e community. There's now a continuum of class complexity, from "I hit it with my sword" to "I pick all my spells every day."

(9) A tighter condition list. 3.5 had ... what, 35 or 40 conditions that I needed to reference whenever I needed them. Dazed vs. Dazzled, Scared vs. Panicked, Nauseated, etc. 4e's list is a lot more concise, and I have them memorized by now.

(10) Finally and critically, reference time during play and self-contained stat blocks. This is another one of those game-changers for me. I don't need to keep the SRD open in a window on my laptop to look up spells and conditions during play, and I don't need to print out pages of spell descriptions for my monsters in advance. Monsters and NPCs have enough stuff to do that they don't get boring in a fight, without a wealth of unnecessary detail that will never be important in-play. Players of spellcasters don't need a dog-eared copy of the PHB with them at all times; their abilities are self-contained, too. I still don't care for power cards, specifically, but I love power sheets - it keeps everything easy and concise, and ready at the table when needed.

So yeah. It's basically a shift in focus from process to results, and from "Rules describe the world" to "Rules describe how the world interacts with the PCs." I feel like the rules are able to get out of my way more easily than they did with 3.x, and my enjoyment of DMing has profited as a result.

Edit: I think the Skill Challenge system can work pretty well, and I improv them all the time. I like it better than individual skill checks for a lot of things. I don't think it's as big a game-changer as a lot of other stuff, but it can be pretty awesome sometimes. I kind of hate it for stuff like social interactions - it makes them stilted and awkward - but I love it for stuff like disarming glyphs in the middle of a fight, multi-day travel across hazardous terrain, and hunting down information or people in a city. Stuff like that, it's great for.

-O

[obryn]

...and anticipating the monster math questions ahead of time...

TRAINZ, STOP READING NOW. I DON'T WANT OTHER PARTS OF YOUR BODY TO FROTH.

Alright, so one of the biggest problems with 4e early on in its run is grind. And, honestly, it still can happen, but there's been a lot of improvement on this front.

I need to start from the default in 4e - that most combats will be between 30 and 90 minutes, but preferably closer to 45-60 in general. If this is already too long for you, then that's about where common ground ends, and AD&D is probably a safer bet. It's not insane to me; in the last 3.5 game I ran, this was pretty common at mid-levels, and I even had a few climactic fights last about 3-4 hours or so. What 4e doesn't do well is the random, super-quick, drop-in fight; when I want those, I use 1e.

OK, so there were a few pretty big problems with 4e on its release. Those include...

(1) Monsters did WAY too low damage. And the monsters who did damage, couldn't hit.
(2) Monsters' defenses were too high relative to PCs' statistics. This got bad in Paragon, and almost game-defeating in Epic.

So, what you had was...

Below-level monsters couldn't hit the PCs. They certainly didn't do enough damage to challenge them in any significant way. They were effectively worthless bags of boring, free XP hoping they scored a random crit.

At-level monsters might hit, but still didn't do enough damage for anything like a challenge. (In one example, a 15th-level monster was dealing 1d12+7 damage. It would take 10+ rounds to bring down even a 15th-level weakling PC.) They weren't scary, but their defenses were usually hittable. That is, until you got to about mid-Paragon when the math broke.

Above-level monsters could hit just fine, and their damage was generally acceptable, but their defenses and hit points were ALSO higher. So it was very tough to bring them down, particularly once the math broke around mid-Paragon. "Soldiers" were the worst here - they have very high defenses and do very low damage.

In order to make for a challenging fight, especially at high levels, DMs had to use those above-level monsters and above-level encounters... Which had high defenses and a lot of HPs. The end result is a ton of whiffing on the PCs sides, and long-ass fights.

So. Two things were fixed in the past few years.

(1) Feats were introduced to increase PC accuracy. It's a feat patch for the math problems that come about after 5th level and that become kind of crippling after 15th.
(2) More critically, monster damage was increased and their attack rolls were normalized.

You see, if your at-level monsters and below-level monsters are hitting often enough and dealing enough damage to be actual threats, you don't need those high-level monsters anymore. Fights go quicker, because there's a lot less whiffing and a lot more damage being doled out on both sides. DMs don't need to rely on Level+3 or Level+4 fights to challenge PCs, because Level+0 fights are now sufficiently difficult not to be a joke. PC death increases, too, but I consider that an added bonus. :)

Here endeth the lesson.

-O

[Xavier Lang]

I only played 4th edition when it was new, did they ever make any changes or updates to characters out of combat powers? When we played we had problems with a lack of options outside of violent combat.

[Droid101]

I heal myself 50 times even though I'm a brute warrior.

[Critter]

I heal myself 50 times even though I'm a brute warrior.

This is what irritates me about 4e. I really, really, really think this part of it is stupid. But, haven't yet to play 4e I really can't say much about how it works in actual practice.

[Name Lips]

I only played 4th edition when it was new, did they ever make any changes or updates to characters out of combat powers? When we played we had problems with a lack of options outside of violent combat.

Most editions seem to operate on the assumption that an "adventure" is a sequence of combat encounters which provide treasure and xp. They usually mention that perhaps you might sneak or bluff your way past the encounters, and that would be deserving of the full xp as well.

They don't seem to assume players will do things like Wind Walk to the top of the tower, or use rock to mud to collapse the tower and pick through the rubble to get treasure. They don't assume you'll deliberately get caught pickpocketing so you will get thrown in prison with the guy you're supposed to rescue, depending on the wizard to teleport everybody back out again.

Players have always been free to be creative, but 4th edition seems to assume the violent, combat path even more so than other editions. When in my mind that's often the least interesting way of playing out the story.

I do like the tactical, strategic combat part of D&D. But that's only part of the game, and I think the rules should be written on the assumption that people want items and abilities that work within the rules context of the system but are not intended for the combat half of the game. I don't want the non-combat half to be totally role-playing freeform, but I don't want it reduced to a few skill checks either.

I also tend to not like the concept of the party being an elite tactical unit, well-honed to be a combat machine with defined roles and synergy and whatnot. I instead prefer the storytelling fantasy staple of "group of unlikely heroes" -- people with their own histories and motivations who have ended up working together. What are the odds that the 4 heroes who end up joining forces in the slave arena and escaping and engaging in a dramatic quest to bring down the evil emperor would just happen to be a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard (or other 4-member, balanced party)?

I find it more interesting when the characters have to think creatively to solve problems their classes aren't designed for, like pooling money for potions when they realize they don't have a cleric, getting their wizard Knock and Spider Climb when they don't have a rogue, figuring out who should be in front and why when they don't have anybody in heavy armor. Maybe we should capitalize on the resources we do have instead of worrying about what we're missing... maybe we should act like real people instead of assuming every encounter will just happen to be balanced so we have a reasonable assumption of defeating it, and charging in on the assumption that we have the abilities to pull this off...

Maybe we'll need to hire outside help. That wizard we met last week, do you think he can scry this guy we're looking for? What about the thieves' guild, we're on good terms with them. Surely they know how to break into and out of the palace jail, bypassing the ogre-magi guards!

Having set powers and balanced parties and assigned roles just encourages in-the-box thinking. When all you have are a selection of hit-point-damaging powers, everything you run into starts to look like a stat block. That makes sad grognard sad. :(

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I think I'm almost entirely the opposite opinion, Scut.

And you are far from alone.

Just to be clear with you folks, I'm not trying to start any "edition wars" or whatever, cause I think that's stupid. Every single edition of D&D has had it's good and bad features, and that's entirely depending on one's POV. I like thread like this though because they make me think and sometimes see different opinions, and see the games in a different way. We just disagree on what version of D&D is "the best" according to our personal preferences.

[obryn]

I only played 4th edition when it was new, did they ever make any changes or updates to characters out of combat powers? When we played we had problems with a lack of options outside of violent combat.
That's generally still kind of free-form, and considered the domain of skills - but yes, there's been a move towards it, to the consternation of some 4e fans. :) The Essentials releases really helped in this direction; among the new stuff are Wilderness Knacks - which are kind of the tricks that might be covered by feats in 3e - and a lot more non-combat spells. For example, there's an out-of-combat Charm Person now that Wizards can pick up at 2nd level, called Instant Friends.

Also, there's rituals... but honestly, they're a great idea, badly implemented.

I heal myself 50 times even though I'm a brute warrior.

This is what irritates me about 4e. I really, really, really think this part of it is stupid. But, haven't yet to play 4e I really can't say much about how it works in actual practice.
If you think that's how healing surges work, you're very very mistaken.

Now, healing in 4e is a lot more Die Hard and a lot less Saving Private Ryan, but the ability to heal yourself in the thick of things is pretty darn restricted. Healing surges are, simply put, your "real" across-the-day hit points. You usually can't use them very much, but your various Leaders can let you use them.

Think of it as having a pool of Hit Points right now, and a much larger reserve which represents your maximum healing during the day. And think of damage in 4e as, like I said, Die Hard damage. Stuff that hurts and that injures you, but which you can fight past.

Players have always been free to be creative, but 4th edition seems to assume the violent, combat path even more so than other editions. When in my mind that's often the least interesting way of playing out the story.
The released adventures for the first 2 years were simply awful about this. They're just bad adventures, boring slogs from one boring fight to another. Newer adventures are a ton more flexible, and they've finally ditched the Delve format that got introduced late in 3.5's lifespan. The end result is adventures like The Vault of Darom Madar, last year, which is as free-form as any adventure I've ever run in any edition.

But anyway, this is one of the reasons I much prefer to make my own adventures. It's dirt-simple, the system works with me instead of against me, and I can plan things out however I want to. I also don't worry a bit about game balance, and my players are well aware that if they don't run when they should, or if they shit-talk a High Praetor of Balic, there are consequences.

-O

[TiQuinn]

Obryn, that sounds like a lot of expensive material to wade through to finally get to a revised system that works well. It would've sucked to be an early adopter.

[obryn]

Obryn, that sounds like a lot of expensive material to wade through to finally get to a revised system that works well. It would've sucked to be an early adopter.
Well, it's not like the game was bad early on, or that I hated it. :) I was having a blast, but for some stuff - like monsters - I was implementing some house-rules here or there. And when I ran WotC's adventures, I was heavily tweaking them. The system has seen immense improvement, but apart from monsters, the new stuff works with the old stuff just fine. (And the monsters are easy to update.) Had it not been for the improvements, though, I might not have stuck with the game as long as I have.

Also, the guys at WotC released the Essentials products last year. It's not a new edition in the sense of 3.5 - the stuff in it all integrates with and adds onto everything released before it - but it's a good starting point for newbies, and a lot closer to earlier editions both in style and tone. So someone looking to get into 4e isn't stuck with the early drafts, so to speak.

-O

[The Winslow]

I never played any version of D&D before 3e (though I did read through the Player's Options books earlier, and IIRC even created some wizard-type character I ended up never having the opportunity to play). I mostly stopped playing D&D some time before 4e was announced, and haven't really been interested in it since.

To me, D&D, by virtue of being level-based, is the game where the campaign dies before you get to finally do the cool stuff you had built your character to do. The highest I could reach was level 11.

[Trainz]

I never played any version of D&D before 3e (though I did read through the Player's Options books earlier, and IIRC even created some wizard-type character I ended up never having the opportunity to play). I mostly stopped playing D&D some time before 4e was announced, and haven't really been interested in it since.

To me, D&D, by virtue of being level-based, is the game where the campaign dies before you get to finally do the cool stuff you had built your character to do. The highest I could reach was level 11.

That's why, with my current 2nd ed campaign, I intend to go on playing once the players reach level 20.

They won't get any more levels, but I will grant them special boons once every few games or so. This way I won't overpower them stat wise, thus being able to use the monsters in the books, and they'll still have something to look forward to, stuff like flight, regeneration, automatic resurrection (maybe once per week), telepathy, you know, cool powers that make your character feel more and more like a demi-god without breaking it...

[Varaj]

Most editions seem to operate on the assumption that an "adventure" is a sequence of combat encounters which provide treasure and xp. They usually mention that perhaps you might sneak or bluff your way past the encounters, and that would be deserving of the full xp as well.


D&D has always been, in my opinion, a tactical miniatures combat game with a thin veneer of RPG shit slapped on. 4e does the tactical miniature combat stuff best making it the best version in my mind.
I personally don't even put D&D on the table if I want to role-play and I don't put D&D on the table if I want to do tactical miniature combat.

[Hatter]

D&D has always been, in my opinion, a tactical miniatures combat game with a thin veneer of RPG shit slapped on. 4e does the tactical miniature combat stuff best making it the best version in my mind.
I personally don't even put D&D on the table if I want to role-play and I don't put D&D on the table if I want to do tactical miniature combat.

Agreed here. A lot of issues with D&D and the version wars have to do with people trying to make D&D into something it's not. If I want a narrative RPG, I am not going to look at D&D or it's immediate derivatives.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I think BX D&D is good for what it tries to do... it's a Medieval dungeon-crawl/wilderness RPG for classic Tolkien-based fantasy characters. You can change some of the classes and tweak them for play very easily, but the more you stray from a Medieval or earlier time period, the less well it works. More modern games make better sense using skill-based systems.

[doc]

Properly get bad rep for this but is there a 4.5 edition due out ?

[obryn]

Properly get bad rep for this but is there a 4.5 edition due out ?
Nothing has been announced at this point.

Hiring Monte Cook recently leads me to believe that there's something in the works - hiring designers is one of the surest signs of that - but I don't really know what. It's a bit early for a new edition, but you never know.

Some folks called Essentials "4.5" but it was a very different kind of release than 3.5. (It's a self-contained way to play 4e in a more classic D&D style, but all the character options play well with everything that's come before it; it's not a complete re-release like 3.5 was.)

Someone - Scott Rouse, I think - promised there'd never be another .5 edition back when 4e was released. Of course, he's no longer with WotC, so take it for what it's worth. :)

Anyway, you know how gamers are. Everything WotC does is either a sign that 4e is wrapping up, or 5e is coming out soon, or everything is getting ruined, or or or... It's all tea leaves and entrails at this point. I think hiring Monte Cook is a sign; the problem is, it's anybody's guess exactly what it's a sign of.

-O

[Dacke]

Anyway, you know how gamers are. Everything WotC does is either a sign that 4e is wrapping up, or 5e is coming out soon, or everything is getting ruined, or or or... It's all tea leaves and entrails at this point. I think hiring Monte Cook is a sign; the problem is, it's anybody's guess exactly what it's a sign of.
I like comparing it to Kremlinology.

[obryn]

...and just as I get done talking about how 4e can't handle zero-to-hero gaming, WotC releases 0-level rules out of nowhere today.

Shows what I know. :)

-O

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I'm just glad we have the internet and a host of fan forums so all kinds of material is available to play whatever you want.