D&D 4E 4e - Is it really D&D Yet?
- Thread starter Beerwolf
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
eleran said:
If you've hung around ENWorld or the WotC forums during 2006 and the early part of 2007, the power of players over DMs in 3e has been a consistent forum topic, because in the previous edition the power of players has increased along with the more consistent and encompassing rules.
Concurrent with it has been the difficulty of DMing higher level encounters, giving rise to DMs often giving their players more jobs to do in helping him keep track of all the statuses, hit point damage, etc. on the monsters. Habits can be hard to break.
I know for myself, I let the players help me keep track of spell durations, hit point damage accumulations, etc. on the monsters by slipping scrap paper chits under the monster minis, because this helps us both when more than five or six monsters are on the table.
brehobit
Explorer
Welcome to the forums!
I'll mention that some of us largely agree with you. I think the simplified rules and choices aren't quite the richness I'm looking for. At the same time, I personally find 3e hard to run past 8th level or so. So I'd like the richness without the pain...
There are things in 4e I like a lot. I think the healing surges are just this side of brilliant. The new skill system is not quite as functional, but much simpler, which I appreciate. I just wish the spells (including the higher-level ones we've seen) were less "blasty" and more flexible. I also wish the classes didn't all have the same management system (daily, encounter, at will).
I'll mention that some of us largely agree with you. I think the simplified rules and choices aren't quite the richness I'm looking for. At the same time, I personally find 3e hard to run past 8th level or so. So I'd like the richness without the pain...
There are things in 4e I like a lot. I think the healing surges are just this side of brilliant. The new skill system is not quite as functional, but much simpler, which I appreciate. I just wish the spells (including the higher-level ones we've seen) were less "blasty" and more flexible. I also wish the classes didn't all have the same management system (daily, encounter, at will).
Doug McCrae
Legend
Welcome to ENWorld, Beerwolf.
I started playing D&D in 1982. My edition progression is the same as yours, Basic-1e-2e-3e-3.5. I intend to buy 4e and give it a try. I'm very enthusiastic about most of what I've read with only a few concerns. It looks like the new game will be fixing problems, such as the power of wizards, that have been there since the beginning.
Does it feel like D&D?
Firstly, does it matter?
Secondly, 4e still has classes, levels, hit points, armor class, d20 to hit, lots of magic items (the default is a few less than 3e but still a lot more than most fictional fantasy heroes) and lots of monsters in a vaguely medieval pseudo-Euro setting. PCs will still form gangs with diverse power sets, go down holes in the ground and kick monster butt. Some remnants of alignment have been maintained. There's still some Vancian magic (the daily powers). There's still the arcane/divine split, which I'd like to see gone. The iconic monsters are still around such as beholders, gnolls and chromatic dragons, which I'd also like to see gone. In some ways it's still too D&Dy for my taste.
4e retains the d20 system from 4e. There's still feats, five foot steps, attacks of opportunity, reach, standard, move, swift and immediate actions. Some of these have changed a bit, some have just been renamed.
Some of what might seem to be big changes - at-will spells for wizards, 'Vancian' powers for melee guys, new monster stat block format - were first introduced in late 3e books, Complete Mage, Tome of Battle and Monster Manual 4-5, respectively.
In all honesty 4e is not quite enough change for my taste, but I'm very happy with almost all the changes that have been made.
I started playing D&D in 1982. My edition progression is the same as yours, Basic-1e-2e-3e-3.5. I intend to buy 4e and give it a try. I'm very enthusiastic about most of what I've read with only a few concerns. It looks like the new game will be fixing problems, such as the power of wizards, that have been there since the beginning.
Does it feel like D&D?
Firstly, does it matter?
Secondly, 4e still has classes, levels, hit points, armor class, d20 to hit, lots of magic items (the default is a few less than 3e but still a lot more than most fictional fantasy heroes) and lots of monsters in a vaguely medieval pseudo-Euro setting. PCs will still form gangs with diverse power sets, go down holes in the ground and kick monster butt. Some remnants of alignment have been maintained. There's still some Vancian magic (the daily powers). There's still the arcane/divine split, which I'd like to see gone. The iconic monsters are still around such as beholders, gnolls and chromatic dragons, which I'd also like to see gone. In some ways it's still too D&Dy for my taste.
4e retains the d20 system from 4e. There's still feats, five foot steps, attacks of opportunity, reach, standard, move, swift and immediate actions. Some of these have changed a bit, some have just been renamed.
Some of what might seem to be big changes - at-will spells for wizards, 'Vancian' powers for melee guys, new monster stat block format - were first introduced in late 3e books, Complete Mage, Tome of Battle and Monster Manual 4-5, respectively.
In all honesty 4e is not quite enough change for my taste, but I'm very happy with almost all the changes that have been made.
In fairness, it helps that he is wrong.danbuter1 said:
Even the bits that are his personal subjective opinion.
Or, more specifically: Welcome to EN World, I'm sorry the game didn't agree with what you're looking for.
I liked it, though, and I hope that you either give it another try later, or find the game that's right for you. Good gaming!
Doug McCrae
Legend
Well, I am a fanboi, no denying it. I kinda like the Avril Lavigne spelling too. I thought there was nothing objectionable about Beerwolf's post, to the contrary I found it interesting.danbuter1 said:
He's been playing the game a long time, he was at D&DXP, and he's giving his honest opinon about 4e. Now it's true that a lot of people have said, "It's not D&D" before, but Beerwolf wasn't to know that, you can't expect new posters to trawl through every
Last edited:
It really is a free country - guy's allowed to dislike his experience as much as the next is allowed to like it.
It always seems to come back to the myriad differences in what people "feel" constitutes "D&D," aside from merely having the legal right to put the title on top of a game.
Hell, some people can argue that the mere change in the style of the ampersand between Dungeons - and - Dragons "changes it irrevocably." The question then is: is D&D merely a specific brand name or does it have a "larger" conotation - i.e., growing up in the south we used the term "Coke" to mean the generic of a type of dark soft drink, whether it was brand named Coke or Pepsi.... yet no one would use that generic when talking about clearer drinks like Sprite.
So, extending the metaphor, some may feel that older (O and 1e) are "Coke," 2e was "Pepsi," 3e "Dr. Pepper" and 4e is now something more akin to Sprite (ok guys - just a metaphor here - don't get too excited or bothered lol)....
Others will tell you they never liked Coke OR Pepsi OR Dr. Pepper, and they're finally happy that they finally have Sprite.
I gave up on "officially published D&D" as the switch to 3.5 happened. That doesn't mean I disparage or put down those who like a different "flavor" to their gaming. It just means I like what I like and others like what they like. I play another system entirely (don't worry - I have no intention of proselytizing here!), and I am not interested in the paradigms that motivate 4e.
Recently I posted a poll about would people buy/support the new system without the legal moniker of D&D on it -- I think it's safe to say that many would not. I play D&D. Sometimes I play a game that has it on the cover (my B/X or 1e stuff). Mostly now I play it with the gaming logo of another company, a different system altogether. Does that mean I am not playing D&D?
I think I am, but that's because "D&D" is, to me, a generic term for a style of FRPGing, a "style" that the OP is elusively trying to nail down.... an archetypal fantasy setting that's not primarily defined by character builds, powers and stats. I will reiterate, I do NOT mean to say that those who want this focus of RPGing (a focus which 4e proudly embraces) are wrong, just to try to explain the differences in mindsets.
So, in the words of the late E. Gary Gygax, play what you like and remember to have fun!
It is a game, not a religion.
It always seems to come back to the myriad differences in what people "feel" constitutes "D&D," aside from merely having the legal right to put the title on top of a game.
Hell, some people can argue that the mere change in the style of the ampersand between Dungeons - and - Dragons "changes it irrevocably." The question then is: is D&D merely a specific brand name or does it have a "larger" conotation - i.e., growing up in the south we used the term "Coke" to mean the generic of a type of dark soft drink, whether it was brand named Coke or Pepsi.... yet no one would use that generic when talking about clearer drinks like Sprite.
So, extending the metaphor, some may feel that older (O and 1e) are "Coke," 2e was "Pepsi," 3e "Dr. Pepper" and 4e is now something more akin to Sprite (ok guys - just a metaphor here - don't get too excited or bothered lol)....
Others will tell you they never liked Coke OR Pepsi OR Dr. Pepper, and they're finally happy that they finally have Sprite.
I gave up on "officially published D&D" as the switch to 3.5 happened. That doesn't mean I disparage or put down those who like a different "flavor" to their gaming. It just means I like what I like and others like what they like. I play another system entirely (don't worry - I have no intention of proselytizing here!), and I am not interested in the paradigms that motivate 4e.
Recently I posted a poll about would people buy/support the new system without the legal moniker of D&D on it -- I think it's safe to say that many would not. I play D&D. Sometimes I play a game that has it on the cover (my B/X or 1e stuff). Mostly now I play it with the gaming logo of another company, a different system altogether. Does that mean I am not playing D&D?
I think I am, but that's because "D&D" is, to me, a generic term for a style of FRPGing, a "style" that the OP is elusively trying to nail down.... an archetypal fantasy setting that's not primarily defined by character builds, powers and stats. I will reiterate, I do NOT mean to say that those who want this focus of RPGing (a focus which 4e proudly embraces) are wrong, just to try to explain the differences in mindsets.
So, in the words of the late E. Gary Gygax, play what you like and remember to have fun!
It is a game, not a religion.
Brown Jenkin
First Post
seskis281 said:
Hey, you left off RC Cola. Now that is a real cola, not like all those big corporation drinks.
Hussar
Legend
danbuter1 said:
So, we should ignore things that are actually factually wrong, like GURPS being a d20 system?
But, let's look at the OP's post shall we? It's got every flashbutton catchphrase you could ask for:
- the 4e rules don’t “feel” like D&D anymore. - Oh look, "It's not D&D anymore"
- If I wanted that, World of Warcraft is out there for me to play. - Oh look, the obligatory comparison to videogames.
- Where is the individuality of I’m the only elf wizard with this magic item - Oh look, 4e kills RP.
- Okay, how is this quicker? - Oh look, standard line about how play is actually going to be slower at the table.
- Those that have played D&D using 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5, were not impressed with the changes. - Oh look, appeal to the masses.
- There is tons of material content available, and with Paizo - Oh look, invoking 3rd party publishers, because, y'know, they're just better.
Sorry, I don't believe for one second that this is a totally new poster who has never seen the boards before. Far and away too many convenient references in there for that.
Nice try though.
/edit - Just thought of it. He did miss one button though. There is no obligatory food analogy. /hong.
Last edited:
