Hi all, Since everyone else has given their opinion I am giving mine.
D&D 4th Ed. as presented at the D&DXP is just like good old 3rd ed just more so.
Here is what I mean. When we made the transition from 2cnd to 3rd there were a lot of new and scary things. Feats, more HP at L1, different mechanics for making to hit rolls, saves, grappling... etc... Some of these things seemed very overpowered and muchkin. For example having max HP at first level. The feats also made things a seem very overpowered. But it turns out they were just fine. PCs were exceptional people and could just do more than the average Joe off the street. That is why they are heroes. Monsters were changed too. They were given a CR and we were given a mechanic to create appropriate encounters. The designers even came up with an estimate of how many encounters you needed per level.
OK Enough about 3rd, why did I say 4th was just like 3rd just more so?
With the preview it looked at first glance that PCs were overpowered munchkins, but they didn't turn out that way since monsters had scaled up too. When we played, each encounter took about the same amount of time it used to. There were more rounds but that is fine. Yes , the critics are right there seem to be fewer one punch knockouts. (why is this a problem?) PCs now have powers. They resemble feats pretty strongly and function very well. Monsters were given roles and encounters were designed around a concept of what would be a challenge to the PCs and how to fill that challenge. It worked very well and has a strong parallel to the old CR system.
So the underlying style of the system wasn't that different, just faster and easier. I was able to play "Escape from Sembia" (4th ed Preview) and the RPGA tournement (3.5) back to back on Friday and the 3.5 system really felt clumsy in comparison. The 4th ed felt like a cleaned up and streamlined version of the game.
I have been playing D&D since 1980, so please don't accuse me of being someone who wants an MMO or video game style game. I don't,I want D&D. I just like the fact that the new rules seem to be trying to keep out of the way. Combat is fast and mobile, not "stand and slap" like the old days. It makes things fit with a more fantastic vision of the game. I have fond memories of OD&D, AD&D and even 2nD Ed, but I have always felt 3rd was a huge improvement, and now 4th seems to be a good evolution.
Before I relurk, I also played "Scalegloom Halls" 4th ed preview and the delve twice. I have seen posts complaining that Scalegloom Halls was unchallenging in the first two encounters and totally overwhelming in the third. I believe that Scalegloom was meant to be taken as a whole which meant you were not supposed to use your daily powers prior to the third encounter. If you had you were going to be in trouble, further you needed VERY good teamwork for that encounter. If you had your daily powers ready, worked as a team and got a little lucky with die rolls the monster could be killed. My party did die but we bloodied it.
OK I will now go back to lurking.
D&D 4th Ed. as presented at the D&DXP is just like good old 3rd ed just more so.
Here is what I mean. When we made the transition from 2cnd to 3rd there were a lot of new and scary things. Feats, more HP at L1, different mechanics for making to hit rolls, saves, grappling... etc... Some of these things seemed very overpowered and muchkin. For example having max HP at first level. The feats also made things a seem very overpowered. But it turns out they were just fine. PCs were exceptional people and could just do more than the average Joe off the street. That is why they are heroes. Monsters were changed too. They were given a CR and we were given a mechanic to create appropriate encounters. The designers even came up with an estimate of how many encounters you needed per level.
OK Enough about 3rd, why did I say 4th was just like 3rd just more so?
With the preview it looked at first glance that PCs were overpowered munchkins, but they didn't turn out that way since monsters had scaled up too. When we played, each encounter took about the same amount of time it used to. There were more rounds but that is fine. Yes , the critics are right there seem to be fewer one punch knockouts. (why is this a problem?) PCs now have powers. They resemble feats pretty strongly and function very well. Monsters were given roles and encounters were designed around a concept of what would be a challenge to the PCs and how to fill that challenge. It worked very well and has a strong parallel to the old CR system.
So the underlying style of the system wasn't that different, just faster and easier. I was able to play "Escape from Sembia" (4th ed Preview) and the RPGA tournement (3.5) back to back on Friday and the 3.5 system really felt clumsy in comparison. The 4th ed felt like a cleaned up and streamlined version of the game.
I have been playing D&D since 1980, so please don't accuse me of being someone who wants an MMO or video game style game. I don't,I want D&D. I just like the fact that the new rules seem to be trying to keep out of the way. Combat is fast and mobile, not "stand and slap" like the old days. It makes things fit with a more fantastic vision of the game. I have fond memories of OD&D, AD&D and even 2nD Ed, but I have always felt 3rd was a huge improvement, and now 4th seems to be a good evolution.
Before I relurk, I also played "Scalegloom Halls" 4th ed preview and the delve twice. I have seen posts complaining that Scalegloom Halls was unchallenging in the first two encounters and totally overwhelming in the third. I believe that Scalegloom was meant to be taken as a whole which meant you were not supposed to use your daily powers prior to the third encounter. If you had you were going to be in trouble, further you needed VERY good teamwork for that encounter. If you had your daily powers ready, worked as a team and got a little lucky with die rolls the monster could be killed. My party did die but we bloodied it.
OK I will now go back to lurking.
