4e Change of mind

[Mercule]

I was hugely excited about 3e. When I first read the books, I thought: “This is the D&D I would’ve designed.” Yet, in practice, I struggled with it. I wasn’t really happy with it. Which lead me to exploring a lot of other systems, reëxploring a lot of systems, and eventually developing a new appreciation for the older editions.

This sounds a bit like me. I dropped D&D in the early-mid 1990s. It was the announcement of 3e that got me to pick it up again. I loved 3.5 for a couple of years and defended it against criticism from others in my group. But, after about 4-5 years, the shine really started wearing off. As a player, I started finding the need to maximize my character for simple tasks (try running a stealth-focused party in modules) to be a chore. As a DM, I found it a pain to tweak any default assumptions without breaking things -- which has never been an issue for me in any other game.

Still, my players had come to a point where they liked the system enough to prefer it to learning something new. So I stuck it out until the end of last year, even playing in a couple of other 3e games. Maybe I'll be able to play 3.5 again, someday, but I'm very much in the "started positive, currently negative" camp on that one.

As far as 4e, I've enjoyed it so far. It's much easier to build encounters for and to scale things. There are still enough things I haven't totally warmed to that leave me uncertain. I don't like the unified system for all sources -- I don't think all classes play the same, but I'd like more differentiation of flavor in the mechanics. The magic items, even in the Vault, are painfully bland and balanced to the point of stagnation. I absolutely hate the summoning and ally rules, but I've always run summoned critters and animal companions as NPCs rather than leaving them under player control, so I never had a problem with "too many actions".

 

[MrGrenadine]

...Classes balanced across all levels....

Wow. This is one of the things I don't like about 4e. I never had a problem with different classes shining at different play levels. Kept things interesting, and made players revisit their tactics and character concepts every now and then to stay effective.

...random hitpoints, level drain, critical confirmation rolls, save or die....

And these are some of the things I LOVE about 3.5.

Diff'rent strokes, and all.

(And before anyone pounces, let me just add that I'm currently playing in three weekly campaigns: a 3.5 game, a Pathfinder game, and a 4e game.)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

4e only nerfed it. One chipper word from the warlord and you're good as new!

 

[Jack99]

4e only nerfed it. One chipper word from the warlord and you're good as new!

Sorry mate, but you are wrong. Cancer is a disease, and the Warlord's Inspiring Word does nothing to diseases

(You were still funny though)

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sorry mate, but you are wrong. Cancer is a disease, and the Warlord's Inspiring Word does nothing to diseases

(You were still funny though)

Wrong!!!

If 4E is based on action movies then Sylvester Stallone's character Marion Cobretti is a warlord who can cure disease.

He even has his own catchphrase for it: " You're the disease......and I'm the cure!!!"

Thus warlords pwn diseases

 

[Stalker0]

Initially was very excited, now I still like it but not as much as before.

I think 4e made some major steps forward in lots of its mechanics. On the other hand I think they blew it in one major area...powers.

I think powers are fine. I think only getting one power is too limiting. I like that there's incentives to not use the same power over and over again. I hate that there is standard recharging ability to allow me the option of using powers multiple times, etc.

That problem has gotten worse with time for me, and its so core to the system that its hard to make drastic changes to it without completing changing the system. But still 4e provides so many solid wonderful updates to the old system that I go with it.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Sorry mate, but you are wrong. Cancer is a disease, and the Warlord's Inspiring Word does nothing to diseases

(You were still funny though)

Its Not A Tumor![/Schwarzenegger]

 

[renau1g]

I enjoy it still, in fact my enjoyment is growing, especially the reduced DM prep time

 

[Siran Dunmorgan]

The Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons was something of a miniatures battle game in the beginning—so much so that the actual miniatures battle game is being merged into it—but offers more, to wit:

In the beginning, most of the published narrative of the game was limited to explaining why the adventurers were hacking their way through this particular set of ancient ruins, ghoul-haunted graveyards, aberration-infested swamps, or other features from adventure to adventure.

Recently, authors have shown increasing maturity with the system: Open Grave was a significant eye-opener in this respect, with its perspectives on skill challenges—crossing the vampire lord's dominion is an interesting narrative in its own right, and it's a skill challenge. The presentation of haunts being variously traps, terrain, or skill challenges—in addition to traditional creatures—is an insightful leveraging of the game's mechanics to present complex concepts in an intuitive way.

Different aspects of haunts, of course, can be—have been—done in other games, and other editions, but usually in a way specific to the situation: the presentation in Open Grave stands out because it takes advantage of existing, familiar, rules and patterns, rather than providing entirely new subsystems for the specific situation.

This—using the game's mechanics to tell, or at least illustrate, the ongoing story—seems to demonstrate an increasing level of familiarity on the part of the authors with the system as a whole, and is generally an encouraging sign of maturity in the Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons.

—Siran Dunmorgan

 

[sjmiller]

I find it interesting the words that are used to describe feelings towards 4e D&D. I often hear the words "like" and "love" used to describe those who are in favor of the new edition. Those who are not in favor, in general, are described as "hating" the system.

For me, "hate" is too strong of a term. "Dislike" is more accurate. I am not fond of the direction the game has taken, and the style of play it seems to extol. I think it is great that other people like it. I also think it is perfectly fine for others to dislike it too.

I am a bit baffled why people think that you have to agree with their position as the only "correct" position. People should be free to choose. For me, for a fantasy game, I will choose GURPS, DragonQuest, or D&D 3e. They work fine for me, but are obviously not the choice for everyone.

For the record, I disliked 4e when I first had a chance to look at it. My view has not changed since then. I don't hate it. It is just not my cup of tea.