D&D 4E I'm here 4e and left wondering....

[Umbran]

I have returned to Enworld after many a year absent wondering if 4E has been greeted with enthusiasm and are the feelings positive or do the masses tend to agree with my initial reaction?

Yes, it has been greeted with enthusiasm. Yes, many do agree with your initial reaction. Some love it, some hate it. A few are still grinding axes now 2 years old about it, others have decided that isn't constructive.

Basically, peoples is peoples.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The quickest answer might be: People like different things in games. It doesn't matter what I like, or what someone else likes -- it matters what you like, and what the people you are going to game with like.

That said, I think that there is definitely an enthusiastic fan base for 4e. You should have no trouble finding people willing to play.


RC

 

[renau1g]

"nerf, buff, and patch" ?

WoTC has addressed some design errors on a handful of powers that when combined with other powers and some liberal missreading of the rules, led to very overpowered characters (like Pun Pun from 3e days). This is very good for the game as it addresses obviously broken elements and as Rechan said it's a very small amount of stuff. Some people criticize them for this, but most people see it as a good thing. I find those who criticize tend to be the ones using the broken elements to their utmost.

 

[Gort]

WoTC has addressed some design errors on a handful of powers that when combined with other powers and some liberal missreading of the rules, led to very overpowered characters (like Pun Pun from 3e days). This is very good for the game as it addresses obviously broken elements and as Rechan said it's a very small amount of stuff. Some people criticize them for this, but most people see it as a good thing. I find those who criticize tend to be the ones using the broken elements to their utmost.

To be honest, a lot of the errata is stuff any half-decent DM would have ruled out on their own if they encountered it anyway - wizards giving any monster a -12 to its saving throws (making them literally impossible), guys using a feature from the "Daggermaster" paragon path for the sole purpose of making their spell and greatsword attacks better, that kind of stuff. I hope they keep up the updates and changes, proves that they're actually interested in keeping the game balanced and playing well.

In addition to this, not all the changes they make are about game balance. The updates to monsters (generally speaking, more attack and less defense) should make the game play faster and be a bit more deadly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

After swearing that I would have nothing to do with 4E, from the very moment I heard of its imminent release, and staying true to my word, I purchased a new Players Handbook today (I couldn’t pass up half price and I had a gift card). My first impression is WTF! Now granted, I have not read the book in detail and perhaps my initial reaction will change, but this looks like a completely different animal with little in common with its predecessors. I am no D&D spring chicken, I have played since somewhere around 1982, and I may have had the same reaction with the coming of 3.0 (I honestly don’t remember), but now I have mostly fond things to say about that edition. I have returned to Enworld after many a year absent wondering if 4E has been greeted with enthusiasm and are the feelings positive or do the masses tend to agree with my initial reaction?

Hey, so a Daytonian eh? I grew up in Beavercreek. Haven't been back in years, but D&D was pretty big back there in the late 70's. Fun times.

There are plenty of people that didn't find 4e to their taste, though honestly I think a large number of them never actually played it. Ah well, their loss IMHO.

Its a really good solid system that we find to be a lot of fun. Many niggling issues that existed in previous editions have been addressed. PCs are all now quite close to the same power level vs the old days when fighters and rogues sort of stopped mattering much after 6th level or so. You can make a MUCH larger range of characters than you could in AD&D, which is nice. Characters start out a bit more capable than in the old days and the game plays better at really high and really low levels than AD&D generally did. The core mechanics of the game are more sensible and more consistent, so a lot more stuff can be done without totally winging it. There are very few arbitrary limitations anymore, your wizard can swing a sword if he wants and there are no level limits or racial class restrictions and whatnot, which I find to be nice.

From a DMing standpoint the encounter design system is remarkably solid, monsters are easy to run and highly customizable, etc. Moving a lot of the more open ended uses of magic into rituals is a nice feature as well. Its easy to create 'plot magic' in the form of rituals for instance. A lot of 'plot busters' either don't exist or are more under the control of the DM (no more Detect Lies or Detect Evil creating awkward plot problems for instance, and strategic teleportation is more limited yet still useful).

Overall I like running it. Games play well, the combat system is a lot of fun and overall the game seems to be an improvement. There are some subtle differences compared with AD&D but its still basically the same sort of game.

 

[Raunalyn]

I'm also an old-school gamer who started way back when D&D was in the red box (What class do you play? I'm an Elf!). I've always approached any new edition with a mixture of trepidation and anticipation. 1st edition was a lot of fun, but there were a lot of things within it that made absolutely no sense (why did wizards progress so slowly? Why couldn't Humans multiclass or Elves dual-class? And what the hell is the deal with racial level limits???). Then 2nd edition came out and fixed some, but not all of them. Then, 3e came out and fixed a whole mess of problems. 3.x edition was perhaps my favorite, but it still had a major flaw; at higher levels, classes like the Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger and Rogue were horribly outshined by spellcasting classes. At higher levels, the Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger and Rogue were very ineffectual and really only were useful as meat-shields for the wizard.

In 4e, this has been fixed. All classes are now well balanced and playable at all levels. The feel of it, to me, does indeed feel a bit like 1st edition, but running and playing the game is so much better! It is incredibly easy to pick up and play, and I've been able to get a group with no D&D experience up and running with brand new characters in under an hour. As a DM, running the game is far simpler and requires much less prep time over-all.

Some people perceive the number of options and powers for characters to be a disadvantage; the shear number of powers can be a little daunting at first. I, on the other hand, like the customizability of each class.

 

[Obryn]

I'll echo the rest and say "give it a shot."

How much it feels like D&D will depend a whole lot on your group. In mine, we were incorporating a lot of the latter-era 3.5 splatbooks like Complete Mage, Book of Nine Swords, and the 3.5 PHB2. The continuum to 4e was pretty clear for my group - but it wasn't for everyone's.

Give the game a shot, is all I can say. It plays better than it reads - and frankly I still haven't read the whole PHB1. (Walls of powers or spells make my brain cloud over.)

You can snag the intro module - Keep on the Shadowfell - for free from WotC's D&D web site. Give it a shot!

-O

 

[Infiniti2000]

...I suppose I’ll have to try 4e and hope that your are correct in that it plays better than it reads. With a quick glance, I haven’t seen any actual “haters”, so I’ll try to accept this positively.

He's definitely correct it plays better than it reads, take that for a fact. However, just please don't go into it thinking (knowing) you'll hate it. It's a different game and enjoy it for what it is. Don't hate it just because it's different which is what I feel a lot of the detractors did. Once you learn it better, obviously feel free to make rules tweaks for those things you can't stand (if any). But, also, keep in mind that your 8yo and his friends probably won't care to or want to make such tweaks (they won't care about any pseudo-realism or verisimilitude or whatever, they just want to play a game with a story and rules are a second thought).

I'll also point out that the best thing about 4E IMO and the real reason I forced my group to switch is that it's FAR FAR easier to DM. If you hope your son takes up Daddy's slack and DM's, this version will make it that much easier.

 

[Garthanos]

Some people perceive the number of options and powers for characters to be a disadvantage; the shear number of powers can be a little daunting at first. I, on the other hand, like the customizability of each class.

The fact that I can use a Warlord class to build a solid non-combatant princess or awesome Aragorn (with Ranger multi-classing) or near perfect re-incarnation of Odin and all be great but very different contributions to play and the battlefield... for me really points towards this latter element with big flashing signs.

 

[Ferghis]

[4e] looks like a completely different animal with little in common with its predecessors.

I agree. It's got the same title, and borrows some title. But it's a completely different game. I like most of it. I especially like their online presence, as imperfect as it is. The updates are good and reliable. Most of the errors and the unbalanced characters are hammered down. It maybe the RPG that I'm least tempted to houserule. With AD&D, I only came back to a btb game in the last few years, and even then, despite my efforts, some houserules were necessary. But that's not the real subject here.

Back to the name issue. I'm not sure it could have been done without the draw of D&D's trade name. The books may have been able to be scaled down to a smaller production, but the service and support could not have. It would be non-existent without the D&D brand name.

Would it have been possible to create a new version of D&D that was closer to the original? I imagine many would answer in the affirmative, but gettin these very proponents to agree on the details would either have been very difficult, or would have yielded something almost identical to any of the retro-clones that populate the internet. Personally, I like Basic Fantasy RPG a lot. But I'm glad I have both that and 4e.

Be aware the system reads vastly different than it plays. It reads awful.

... the player stuff tends to read like an instruction manual.

Jester is right. The player's handbooks were written as reference manuals. They contain almost all the rules necessary for play. All the other books contain inspiration for the DM. There was no easy introduction for new players. To wizbro's credit, they gave a lot of support to local gamestores and the DMs that play there. And many say that a new publication will assist easing folks into the game. This doesn't equate to gygaxian prose, which, along with the novelty, was the draw for most of us back in the day. It's a more analytical process. Again, I have to say that I like the idea of writing the players handbooks as reference manuals, but the first one is more than a little outdated.

Personally, I'm not sure it's worth buying the rule-manuals anymore. I rely on the compendium, which costs about $60 a year. The DM stuff, I'm sure is still very useful.