D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game

[STARP_Social_Officer]

Despite some level of skepticism, my group played our first 4E game today - a prepublished module for 1st-levels. I know there's been a lot of "edition wars" going on, but please note this is not me taking sides - I simply wanted to point out what I thought was good and what I didn't as a discussion starter.

What I Liked:

• Rituals make a kind of sense. Raising the dead shouldn't be something you can do ten times a day, and it adds a sense of the extraordinary that certain things that used to be spells deserve.
• Critical hits do maximum damage. Under 3.5, you could still roll a '1' on your crit damage and do all of 2 points. Nice fix - crits should hurt.
• A high armour class is easier to get at 1st level. Nice.
• The essential mechanics, such as the d20 system, skill checks, Difficulty Classes, AC, Initiative etc. haven't changed, at least not in any significant way.

What I Didn't Like (a longer list)

• Wizards have been seriously neutered. With this 'daily powers', 'encounter powers', 'powers at will' system, one of the major advantages of the wizard - versatility - has been seriously curtailed. No longer can a wizard have a spellbook containing hundreds of useful spells and swap-and-change them for specific tasks - a sort of weapons package if you like. That was the great advantage of wizards over sorcerers in 3.5 - you chose either versatility or firepower.
• Paths make no sense and are very constricting. They essentially force characters to conform to an archtype. I have always denied that classes do this, but paths sure do. There are other types of wizards besides war wizards and control wizards. Some wizards should be able to be just...wizards.
• The classes don't cover what they ought to. I don't really miss the monk, but bards are sorely mourned. Warlords just don't fill the same role - in fact, I don't really see what the warlord brings to the game that a fighter couldn't.
• Similarly, some of the races were poorly chosen. While I miss gnomes, my major gripes are the inclusion of the eladrins and the dragonborn. Eladrin are basically super-elves, and dragonborn just seem a tad too exotic to be a real player race.
• Monsters seem way overpowered. At 1st level, we were fighting kobolds with 36 hit points. That's WAY too high, especially since we aren't really doing any more damage than we would under the old rules.
• The whole thing plays like a video game. It seems like it's been designed to feel that way as well, to the point that while we were playing we kept asking our DM if we could 'save game' and at one point I cracked the group up when a player asked "how do I use this skill" and I answered "hold down B and press up." If I want to go play a video game, I'll go play one.
• There isn't enough to distinguish one character from another. Everybody's basically the same. There's not enough options to customise and vary your character.

There. That's my good vs bad. Basically, I'm not wild about the new rules. Rather than play 4E permanently, I might add the elements I like to the 3.5 rules and create a home-built "Edition 3.75".
But it's early days. It may grow on me.
Though I doubt it.

 

[Bump2daWiza]

Despite some level of skepticism, my group played our first 4E game today - a prepublished module for 1st-levels. I know there's been a lot of "edition wars" going on, but please note this is not me taking sides - I simply wanted to point out what I thought was good and what I didn't as a discussion starter.

What I Liked:

• Rituals make a kind of sense. Raising the dead shouldn't be something you can do ten times a day, and it adds a sense of the extraordinary that certain things that used to be spells deserve.
• Critical hits do maximum damage. Under 3.5, you could still roll a '1' on your crit damage and do all of 2 points. Nice fix - crits should hurt.
• A high armour class is easier to get at 1st level. Nice.
• The essential mechanics, such as the d20 system, skill checks, Difficulty Classes, AC, Initiative etc. haven't changed, at least not in any significant way.

What I Didn't Like (a longer list)

• Wizards have been seriously neutered. With this 'daily powers', 'encounter powers', 'powers at will' system, one of the major advantages of the wizard - versatility - has been seriously curtailed. No longer can a wizard have a spellbook containing hundreds of useful spells and swap-and-change them for specific tasks - a sort of weapons package if you like. That was the great advantage of wizards over sorcerers in 3.5 - you chose either versatility or firepower.
• Paths make no sense and are very constricting. They essentially force characters to conform to an archtype. I have always denied that classes do this, but paths sure do. There are other types of wizards besides war wizards and control wizards. Some wizards should be able to be just...wizards.
• The classes don't cover what they ought to. I don't really miss the monk, but bards are sorely mourned. Warlords just don't fill the same role - in fact, I don't really see what the warlord brings to the game that a fighter couldn't.
• Similarly, some of the races were poorly chosen. While I miss gnomes, my major gripes are the inclusion of the eladrins and the dragonborn. Eladrin are basically super-elves, and dragonborn just seem a tad too exotic to be a real player race.
• Monsters seem way overpowered. At 1st level, we were fighting kobolds with 36 hit points. That's WAY too high, especially since we aren't really doing any more damage than we would under the old rules.
• The whole thing plays like a video game. It seems like it's been designed to feel that way as well, to the point that while we were playing we kept asking our DM if we could 'save game' and at one point I cracked the group up when a player asked "how do I use this skill" and I answered "hold down B and press up." If I want to go play a video game, I'll go play one.
• There isn't enough to distinguish one character from another. Everybody's basically the same. There's not enough options to customise and vary your character.

There. That's my good vs bad. Basically, I'm not wild about the new rules. Rather than play 4E permanently, I might add the elements I like to the 3.5 rules and create a home-built "Edition 3.75".
But it's early days. It may grow on me.
Though I doubt it.

i feel the same way. I will be playing 3E and true 20 now.

 

[MerricB]

[*]Wizards have been seriously neutered. With this 'daily powers', 'encounter powers', 'powers at will' system, one of the major advantages of the wizard - versatility - has been seriously curtailed. No longer can a wizard have a spellbook containing hundreds of useful spells and swap-and-change them for specific tasks - a sort of weapons package if you like. That was the great advantage of wizards over sorcerers in 3.5 - you chose either versatility or firepower.

While there's an element of truth to that, see Rituals. One of the really, really cool things about rituals is that you always have access to them - you don't need ot prepare them in advance.

[*]Similarly, some of the races were poorly chosen. While I miss gnomes, my major gripes are the inclusion of the eladrins and the dragonborn. Eladrin are basically super-elves, and dragonborn just seem a tad too exotic to be a real player race.

Just on the eladrin: the splitting of elves into eladrin and elves comes from the split-personality of elves in previous editions: either as nature-loving rangers or a magical (arcane) race. There were plenty of discussion about how bad elves were in 3e at being wizards (according to some, they were the fourth or fifth-best race to be a wizard, after human, gnome, halfling, and possibly dwarf!) Getting one race to good at two things obviously proved troublesome... and there's precedence in Tolkien and previous D&D lore for the way it was handled.

[*]Monsters seem way overpowered. At 1st level, we were fighting kobolds with 36 hit points. That's WAY too high, especially since we aren't really doing any more damage than we would under the old rules.

It's a shock. We've noticed that combats take a lot less time (and the monsters don't live as long) the more we play the game, though.

[*]There isn't enough to distinguish one character from another. Everybody's basically the same. There's not enough options to customise and vary your character.

Interesting. Do you mean within the same class, or do you feel that even between different classes everyone feels the same? Just as an aside: in oD&D and BECM D&D, the first level cleric and fighter were almost identical in abilities. The cleric couldn't even cast spells! They got more differentiated as they gained levels. I feel this is also true in 4e, although we've noticed definite differences between how characters play as we've gained experience with the system.

Cheers!

 

[Cadfan]

1. Wizards were nerfed on purpose. Their versatility let them sideline other classes too easily.

2. You should take another look at paths. While they do sort of deny the "generic wizard" option by telling you to take what is essentially a prestige class, a lot of the paths really are "generic [class]" paths. The current wizard paths are probably the most flavorful, right now.

3. The class distribution is different, yes. The best I can say here is that some people really like the new distribution, and some don't, and that over time it looks like the classic classes are coming back. As for the Warlord, it plays completely differently from the Fighter, trust me. They both hit things with weapons, but they do so in very different ways. One of 4e's goals seems to be to make classes that aren't as versatile, but are incredibly elegant and well designed for the task they perform. Hybrid classes like a Fighter who could also do Warlord tricks wouldn't fit well in this paradigm.

4. Same answer as above. This is one of those things that some people really like, and others really don't, and if they'd chosen differently you'd have the same distribution of likers and haters.

5. Low level monster hp is rebalanced. Your party can still take on the same number of kobolds at low levels as they used to, its just that now, instead of the fight basically being a wait for hits to be rolled, there is hit point attrition like in higher level games. Think of it this way- any kobold that takes more than one hit to drop is a kobold with class levels, and in 4e almost every monster has class levels.

6. This makes me want to bash my head into the wall. 4e is nothing like a video game. 4e uses a fair amount of DM judgment, and simplified math. A video game would use zero DM judgment, and would have no need to simplify the math so that mere humans could comprehend it. 3e was the one that played like a video game, because only a computer could calculate all the different types of bonuses you could get, and assure that you never accidentally stacked two divine ac bonuses or something.

7. Its hard to know what you mean with this. If you mean "everyone uses the same mechanics, there are no unique subsystems for each class like in 3e," then you're correct. The power system is basically unified. However, the power system also gives you MANY more choices when making a character than you had before, particularly for non spellcasters. And the "build option" system means that each class basically has sub-classes, adding further choice.

 

[wayne62682]

What I Didn't Like (a longer list)

Wizards have been seriously neutered. With this 'daily powers', 'encounter powers', 'powers at will' system, one of the major advantages of the wizard - versatility - has been seriously curtailed. No longer can a wizard have a spellbook containing hundreds of useful spells and swap-and-change them for specific tasks - a sort of weapons package if you like. That was the great advantage of wizards over sorcerers in 3.5 - you chose either versatility or firepower.

Actually the wizard is still the most versatile, even with the new system. Only the Wizard can have multiple daily powers in his spellbook and choose them. Your choice is somewhat limited now, but I would gladly take that over the "Wizards win past 8th level" crap of 3.5.

Paths make no sense and are very constricting. They essentially force characters to conform to an archtype. I have always denied that classes do this, but paths sure do. There are other types of wizards besides war wizards and control wizards. Some wizards should be able to be just...wizards.[/b]

Those aren't paths, just suggestions on ways to build a character. You don't have to choose one or the other, they're just guidelines. You can ignore them both and do a mix if it's your inclination.

EDIT: I think you're talking about Paragon Paths, but referring explicitly to "War Wizard" and "Controller" made me think you mean the suggested builds listed under Creating a Wizard. The paragon paths aren't required, either; they're like PrCs in 3.5 and you can choose to take one. I'm sure there will be others released in upcoming books, as well.

The classes don't cover what they ought to. I don't really miss the monk, but bards are sorely mourned. Warlords just don't fill the same role - in fact, I don't really see what the warlord brings to the game that a fighter couldn't.[/b]

Give bonuses to others? Well, the Bard will be back at any rate. I never saw anyone play one, so it doesn't affect me.

Similarly, some of the races were poorly chosen. While I miss gnomes, my major gripes are the inclusion of the eladrins and the dragonborn. Eladrin are basically super-elves, and dragonborn just seem a tad too exotic to be a real player race.[/b]

Eladrin are there to cleanly separate Elves into "tree hugging hippies" and "masters of arcane magic", kind of like in Warhammer Fantasy. Dragonborn are totally awesome to me, but to each their own. They are certainly exotic.

Monsters seem way overpowered. At 1st level, we were fighting kobolds with 36 hit points. That's WAY too high, especially since we aren't really doing any more damage than we would under the old rules.[/b]

This I agree with completely, but I've only played one 4e game so far so I don't know if it balances out. It does seem like the monsters have all been given an increase; I've read of 1st or 2nd level PCs fighting monsters with over 100 hit points.

The whole thing plays like a video game. It seems like it's been designed to feel that way as well, to the point that while we were playing we kept asking our DM if we could 'save game' and at one point I cracked the group up when a player asked "how do I use this skill" and I answered "hold down B and press up." If I want to go play a video game, I'll go play one.[/b]

I disagree totally with that analysis, but you're entitled to your opinion. IMO it plays much simpler than 3.5, and that's not a bad thing. 3.5 was needlessly complicated, while 4e is sleek and streamlined.

There isn't enough to distinguish one character from another. Everybody's basically the same. There's not enough options to customise and vary your character.

I've noticed this too, but it didn't bother me that much since I was having a good time. Most of the customization should come via roleplaying and background, not class mechanics. Remember in 1st and 2nd edition (without using Kits) there was even less options to "customize and vary your character".

There. That's my good vs bad. Basically, I'm not wild about the new rules. Rather than play 4E permanently, I might add the elements I like to the 3.5 rules and create a home-built "Edition 3.75".
But it's early days. It may grow on me.
Though I doubt it.

I think you should give it another shot. I felt the same way when I first heard about 4e, but after giving it a try (I know you already have done this) and sitting down to read the PHB, it started to grow on me.

Happy gaming, thanks for posting this review.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The whole thing plays like a video game.

Which one? I would've assumed WoW but you talk about saving the game, which you can't do in WoW.

I think it feels a lot more like a skirmish-level wargame. Which makes it about as old school as you can get, in rpg terms.

Monsters seem way overpowered. At 1st level, we were fighting kobolds with 36 hit points. That's WAY too high, especially since we aren't really doing any more damage than we would under the old rules.

There are minion versions of most traditional humanoid monsters such as kobolds, goblins and orcs. Use them if you want that videogamey shoot n' die feel.

There isn't enough to distinguish one character from another. Everybody's basically the same. There's not enough options to customise and vary your character.

You mean apart from race, class, paragon path, epic destiny, class feature options, powers, rituals, feats, skills and equipment?

 

[Grimstaff]

What I Didn't Like (a longer list)

• Wizards have been seriously neutered. With this 'daily powers', 'encounter powers', 'powers at will' system, one of the major advantages of the wizard - versatility - has been seriously curtailed. No longer can a wizard have a spellbook containing hundreds of useful spells and swap-and-change them for specific tasks - a sort of weapons package if you like. That was the great advantage of wizards over sorcerers in 3.5 - you chose either versatility or firepower.

This is a common "first impression", but its mainly in relation to 3.5 assumptions. Once you've adjusted to the different core assumptions of 4E, you'll begin to see how versatile the wizard really is: cantrips at will, attacks spells at will, strong attack spells every encounter, a nice list of daily attacks and utilities, and a book of rituals to cast whenever, previous editions mages can't touch this one. True, there are fewer spells in the PHB, but this is a space concern, not a class mechanic. Earlier editions used half their page count for spells, 4E wizards and clerics have to share page count with other classes now. Don't worry, I'm sure there'll be plenty of new spells coming down the pipe from both WotC and 3PPs.

 

[smdmcl]

while we were playing we kept asking our DM if we could 'save game' and at one point I cracked the group up when a player asked "how do I use this skill" and I answered "hold down B and press up."

I've been DM for a session of 4th for my group and if someone would have made these comments while we were playing I would have warned them once and then asked them to leave the table if they persisted. Luckily no one did, we had fun and we plan on playing again. In my opinion, you had pre-conceived negative opinions about the game and you voiced them at the table which colour (or is it discolour?) the light in which I regard your playtest report.

 

[Grimstaff]

I love these threads: "My friends and I gave 4E a chance, here's our list of complaints".

Internet critcs for the win!

 

[Rel]

When I first glanced at the Wizard, I had a similar impression that it was very limited compared to 3e. But once I grokked that bit about being able to choose between dailies, plus rituals, plus cantrips, I got that they are still the class in the game with the absolute most choices for their abilities.