4e Change of mind

[Dimitris]

I still don't care about 4e. I continue to play 3.5e and I am in full support with the excellent 3.5e material coming from PAIZO. I prefer to enrich my library instead of abandon it and buy new versions of the old material.

Dimitris

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

4e disappointed me. I really thought it would cure cancer

I am sure it is still on their agenda, they just want to get it right. The fact that it didn't appear on the recent survey is probably a sign that this might come very soon!
[/blindly defending]

 

[Dragonblade]

My only complaint about 4e is that it is completely minis dependent and sometimes I just want to play without the battlemat.

But other than that, it is hands down the best designed D&D edition ever. It does everything 3e does and does it about ten times better. Classes balanced across all levels, and no more crappy game design like random hitpoints, level drain, critical confirmation rolls, save or die, etc. It kicks 3e's ass and takes its stuff.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Crud, I misvoted.

Remove one from 'negative then grew positive' & move it to 'negative and stayed negative'.

 

[chaotix42]

Nope, too late 4e lover.

 

[Obryn]

I was excited at the announcement, grew increasingly skeptical during the worthless previews (especially the Paladin one; that almost put me off completely), was intrigued by the books, and have grown to appreciate the actual game more and more with each session.

So, would "Negative during the previews, but positive once I got the books" be a choice? I don't know how to categorize it.

-O

 

[Quartz]

I had then played a number of sessions in 4e and eventually concluded that I found the characters too samey and the system too simplistic (meaning lack of things like complicated wizard spells).

I don't understand this part. What's stopping you breaking out your old books and translating the spells therein into 4e spells or rituals?

 

[Celebrim]

I initially was quite hopefully about changing to a new edition, as I'd reached a stage where the number of little picky faults I had with 3.X was overwhelming my ability to house rule for and I was increasingly disatisfied with my attempts to kludge something. This was very similar to the stage where I'd abandoned 1st edition, only the faults in 3.X weren't nearly as glaring.

But my initially positive feelings very quickly disappeared as I figured out (largely correctly I might add) where they were taking the game based on the first couple of previews. I'd had my heart set on something more evolutionary than revolutionary.

I'm increasingly souring on Mearls as a designer. He's quite elegant in his designs, but somehow they are never quite what I wanted. Perhaps he's too elegant for my baroque sensibilities. I'm willing to endure some randomness and complexity.

Still, whatever you may think, at this point I'm fairly certain that I've won my bet on skill challenges and won't be needing to put the 'I'm so sorry song' in my signature.

 

[billd91]

I was cautiously optimistic at the announcement of 4e, unlike the announcement for 3e for which my reaction was quite negative. But the previews started to turn me off as the design direction became clearer and the final result, while with several good ideas, underwhelmed compared to what D&D had been for me for over 20 years.

So my experience with 4e has largely been the direct opposite of my 3e experience.

 

[Mallus]

I liked the previews, but more importantly, after several years of 3e I was ready for/curious about a new set of mechanics for D&D. When I read the core books I was more intrigued but slightly disappointed, mainly because the core books don't read particularly well, and they do give the impression the classes are too homogeneous.

Then my and friends started playing 4e, in full campaign mode (with a brand new homebrew, to boot). The consensus is that it plays beautifully.