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

[That One Guy]

You know, I wonder if the mods could just set up a "4E D&D Sucks/Doesn't Suck" megathread where all posts comparing D&D to D&D or extolling/complaining about 4E would be sent. It could be stickied at the top of the page as well. That way, those people looking to debate whether 4E is good or not would have one place to go to talk at each other, and the rest of us could get on wiith well, posting about everything else game wise.

Good idea or not?

I think it's okay, but at the same time it'd promote the idea of reigniting an edition war. While everyone's going back and forth here - I think for the most part everyone's being civil and exchanging ideas. A few more sarcastic or snarky comments... but nothing that's really insulting or heavily attacking. It's also connected to the topic in that people are talking about what 4e does or does not do for them.

(I think I mentioned it does breakfast for me earlier, but if I'm in the Russian bar 4e does me - sorry, no one had made the joke earlier)

 

[Darkthorne]

Just for the record..

This is not meant to bash 4e, I'm bummed I'm not playing D&D and I was on the 4E bandwagon once I heard about it. If Wotc looks at any of this, be it my postings or those by others and decides we can do this to make it better that's great. If not then so be it. I was curious if my group's reaction to 4E was an anomaly or not. What I post is to show what may be valid concerns for some people and why. Not everyone has the ability to change things on the fly and they have to do things exactly as written (not an issue I have but it is an observation of mine). I do not believe this is a 4e issue when creating your own adventure from scratch but it is with a published adventure. I'm currently waiting for my 3rd group to get together again so I can run a Gythyanki Swordmage (changing from the party leader [tactical warlord]) and I want to see how we fare w/o a leader in the group

 

[Scribble]

I'm currently waiting for my 3rd group to get together again so I can run a Gythyanki Swordmage (changing from the party leader [tactical warlord]) and I want to see how we fare w/o a leader in the group

Were I running a D&D 4e "training camp" I'd have all the new groups start out with no one in the leader role.

 

[ExploderWizard]

3? THREE?! Noooooooo! Not again. . .

Which of the four got voted off the island this time?

Not so much "again" as originally intended.

The thief of course.

Skill packages will let Fighters,Clerics, and Magic Users do thief-like things as well as being a ranger,assassin, scholar, performer, crafter, and others.
Skills will come in primary, secondary, and tertiary suites with no need to calculate skill points and have character sheets looking like menus.

NPCs will be a snap. Need a blackmith? Just note that Joe-Bob is a NM Blacksmith (P7) and you know that he has the skills of a 7th level character with blacksmithing as a primary skill. Done

 

[Aus_Snow]

The thief of course.

Yeah, those guys and their wacky newfangled supp. I. Yeesh.

Last time I went into hysterics defending the 'core four', the crazy man wanted to ditch the Cleric! This one hurts my head only slightly less.

Shame on you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not so much "again" as originally intended.

The thief of course.

Skill packages will let Fighters,Clerics, and Magic Users do thief-like things as well as being a ranger,assassin, scholar, performer, crafter, and others.
Skills will come in primary, secondary, and tertiary suites with no need to calculate skill points and have character sheets looking like menus.

NPCs will be a snap. Need a blackmith? Just note that Joe-Bob is a NM Blacksmith (P7) and you know that he has the skills of a 7th level character with blacksmithing as a primary skill. Done

I really like the 4 roles better. I think there is a distinction between offense (Striker) and defense (Defender) that you better make explicit in the class. Unless you never force a trade-off between the two, and everything that makes you tougher also makes you hit harder...

 

[Minicol]

I do not even want to come close to the books.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I really like the 4 roles better. I think there is a distinction between offense (Striker) and defense (Defender) that you better make explicit in the class. Unless you never force a trade-off between the two, and everything that makes you tougher also makes you hit harder...

My goal with this project is not assign roles, that will be left to the player. Fighters will have abilities that help them protect others without marking or mysteriously compelling anyone to attack them. They can also stealth out, wear lighter armor and go the road of the assassin if they so choose. The classes are there to provide the player with a range of options, not to tell them what thier "job" is. At least not in my world.

 

[Fifth Element]

I do not even want to come close to the books.

I'm not 100% sure that's entirely rational.

 

[Mallus]

I think part of some people's issue with how 4E feels "off" in regards to character gen is that the concept someone has in mind does not match up with how the classes have been rewritten/overhauled completely.

Sure. If your concept is tied to a class implementation from a previous D&D edition, then 4e is going to be problematic.

I think simply renaming a couple of the classes would have made a huge stride in overcoming people's mindset.

This might help, yes.

Previous editions I believe you could do concept to a class immediately "I want a fighter that does...." w/o having to be optimized or stuck into needing a specific stat (fighters now NEED to have a high STR, min of 16 before they hinder the group).

Previous editions supported some concepts well, some badly, some not at all. It's not much different from now.

It's nice to play a character type that isn't as optimized as it can be, or does things differently due to that non-optimization.

It's not like a 1e swordsmen with a 10 STR who chose to wear leather armor is a viable character. How does 4e differ from 1e in that regard?