D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[Umbran]

So far, we've tried a couple of sessions of 4e, just to get the mechanics down. They work well enough, but they don't incite our collective imagination much on their own.

it may be that 4e is good because it gets the mechanics out of everyone's way, but we kind of prefer rules that actually support what we're trying to do a bit more than that.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Being completely honest: Best D&D system yet.

From Powers, to Multiclassing to Magic Items, to Healing Surges, to PPs and EDs, to Skill Challenges, etc, etc, etc.

It is all great in my books. We have been able to run the smoothest, most cinematic and interesting sessions of D&D so far with 4e. With intense combat, indepth diplomacy and vastly superior character concepts and character realizations through the mechanics (for myself a large part of this is thanks to Powers and the glorious way Multiclassing is now handled).

I also find it is the easiest to adapt and alter. Horror, sure. Sci-Fi, sure. Low-Magic, sure. Etc.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And yet you have overlooked a major part - in previous editions wizards could expand their spellbooks, and choose on a day which spells they wanted to memorize. Now there's no such choice.

You mean apart from how the wizard in 4E gets to choose each day which spells he wants to prepare, and how he can take a feat that expands his spellbook (called, oddly enough, Expanded Spellbook)?

-Hyp.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

f.a.t.a.l. ?
I've never heard of it. But I'm poised to be disgusted...

Also have never heard of a key lime. Does it open doors?

 

[Derro]

I ran some quickies for Group A and they didn't care for it much. I tried to be as objective as possible as the GM and I did get several elements out of that I think are good. It has good stuff from the GM perspective.

I've played three sessions with Group B as a player and I really don't like being on the other screen for 4e. I feel very constrained in my character concepts, most of my actions seemed very rote after a few hours of game play, and I was unbelievably disappointed in my wizard even after advancing a few levels.

Me and the other heavies of Group B have decided that 4e probably won't be making another appearance.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Just over a year ago, DMing 3.5, I was ready to call it quits. I hadn't decided whether I would seek a different game system, play non-RPGs, or just give up my hobby. I had already tried a break from DMing, others took the DM chair, thinking it was just burnout. But it wasn't. I asked if anyone else in the group wanted to take the DM reins full-time. But no one wanted to.

Then the 4E announcement hit. I trudged through DMing 3.5 until the new edition came out, just to hold the group together.

Now I'm having the most fun DMing than I think I ever had before. No more anticlimatic boss battles. No more working for hours on an NPC that dies in the first round of battle. No more broken multiclass combos. (I know - "the DM can stop broken combos" - no more policing every splat book that my players spend their hard-earned money on.)

Now I have easy to run monsters with interesting abilities that can last at least a few rounds.

In 4E the DM finally gets to join in on the fun.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Another completely ridiculous assertion. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says, "YOU MUST HAVE A DEFENDER, A STRIKER, A CONTROLLER AND A LEADER OR ELSE THE GODS OR ROLEPLAYING GAMES WILL STRIKE YOU DOWN!"

Each character class specializes in one of four basic
functions in combat: control and area offense, defense,
healing and support, and focused offense. The
roles embodied by these functions are controller,
defender, leader, and striker. The classic adventuring
party includes one character of each role: wizard,
fighter, cleric, and rogue.
Character roles identify which classes can stand
in for each other. For example, if you don’t have a
cleric in your party, a warlord serves just as well in the
leader role.
Roles also serve as handy tools for building adventuring
parties. It’s a good idea to cover each role with
at least one character. If you have five or six players
in your group, it’s best to double up on defender first,
then striker. If you don’t have all the roles covered,
that’s okay too—it just means that the characters need
to compensate for the missing function.

As you can see, the truth is in between what the OP posted and what your hyperbole was implying. I can see how some people would feel like they're getting a warning in this regard "you better choose one of each role otherwise...". I can also see why some people would just flat out ignore the suggestion.

I suppose the focusing on roles that you have here grates for some players. The feeling that such function is as or more important than the character themself (that is who the character is, rather than what the character does).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm enjoying 4e.

I think Wizards aren't doing enough to make it an even better experience, but the game system itself is fun.

I've been running Sellswords of Punjar and ran a few sessions of the Shadofell. Getting ready to do some home brew with FR before the whole nonsense of 4e.

 

[Wormwood]

Two games a week and with the exception of the first month after I cracked open my brand new Moldvay Basic, I've *never* had more fun playing or running D&D.

3.5 actually killed my Sunday group. Months of trying to tease some fun out of its byzantine rules and clauses led our group of RPG newbies to abandon the game entirely. 4e changed that, and brought with it a renewed spirit of interest and excitement.

So yeah, 4e is definitely doin' it for us.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm not a big fan. Feels like a board game to me. Not that I dislike board games - I love board games! But I perfer my board games and my D&D to be more seperated.