D&D 4E Everyone's a swordsage; Thoughts on 4E after my first read-through.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So basically, the game needs time to grow on you, you're saying. Out of curiosity, were you a fan of the ToB? It seems that most of the people I know personally that like it, were also fans of that book.

A view I heard is that D&D 4 might read bad on paper, but plays great.

For me, the game sounds good on paper, too, so I don't know how true that is. (I just hope it's not the reverse for me. That's unlikely though, since I enjoyed the playtest I did with my group a few weeks ago, after the DDXP).

So it might not need to grow on you - you just have to play it, instead of read it. It is a role-playing game, not a textbook or a novel, after all.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well, it seems I was always the odd man out in liking those things. The spiked chain, to my mind, simply mad it feasible to play a fighter than didn't power attack all the time.

That though shouldn't have to have been the case though anyways, a single weapon shouldn't make a class feasible or more interesting, thus 4e and now each class is interesting. Also explains why spiked chain isn't so crazy.

 

[Moggthegob]

Well no, I mean. its no different than it is in 4e, only more explicit. Instead of the rules coming out and saying a certain kind of weapon works better for a certain style of play, it was up to the player to infer. Thats all.

Oh well. I will simply be alone in my like of that.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Quite frankly, from my current experience, 4e IS a fun game, but it just doesn't feel like an upgrade or even side grade to 2e, 3e, etc. I honestly think - and this might sound weird - that the game would be better off without the Dungeons and Dragons label on it, not just for D&D's sake, but for the game's sake. It feels like a non-D&D game that was cut up and disciplined to try and become a D&D game. Really, this system would, in my opinion, shine a lot more if they stopped trying to jam it's circled shape into that square hole.

 

[VannATLC]

Well no, I mean. its no different than it is in 4e, only more explicit. Instead of the rules coming out and saying a certain kind of weapon works better for a certain style of play, it was up to the player to infer. Thats all.

Oh well. I will simply be alone in my like of that.

You like rules/system mastery, something that 4e is actively trying to prevent.

Which, IMO, is a damn good thing, for the game.

 

[Sashi]

Another bit I disliked was the way skills changed and the amount of randomness involved seems significantly toned down. Call me crazy but the idea of a rogue not necessarily knowing his way around locks as well as he knows traps and devices seems good for character building and well character. That said it does seem to be easier to access, if simply not as in-depth or useful for character building. And ,as a DnD fan, I simply like the loads of random chance involved,even if it isn't always in my favor.

Think of the roleplaying expansions that comes from a party with a rogue completely untrained in thievery and a cleric who took skill training and manages all the party's traps by finesse rather than whacking them with Dispell Magic. 3E basically hamstrung anyone who wanted to go against their class skills, if a Wizard tried to up Bluff cross-class he just couldn't, a +10 bluff when DC's are set expecting +20 is functionally useless. You're not "the shifty guy" you're "the guy who thinks he's shifty".

It's right in line with the reasoning behind the Wizard no longer getting Wish at the same level the fighter gets +1 to attacks.

Also, I would have preferred the chart appearing after every character class. I also would have liked the power appearing their own section after the classes, like the 3.5 book. But, perhaps this is merely a force of habit that only I find annoying.

Force of habit, definitely. I admit I was nonplussed by the lack of a table of "this is what you get as you level" for each class, but then since every class gets exactly the same thing, and the table is a full page, it would be a complete waste of space to reprint the table. My only beef is the location of the table. Why is it at the end of "making characters" rather than the start of "classes"?

Falchion VS Greataxe:
One is a +3 prof 2d4 High Crit two handed weapon
The other is +2 1d12 High crit two handed
Choose the falchion when you want to hit more regularly for less damage.

 

[Jack Colby]

And ,as a DnD fan, I simply like the loads of random chance involved,even if it isn't always in my favor.

I agree with you on this, anyway. D&D without rolling randomly for certain things seems very wrong to me. We have been rolling ability scores just like always. Point buy? Yuck... boring. Never even tried it.

I do like the new way of handling skills though. The character's level of skill in all areas now reflects his overall experience (level), and takes no time at all to set up (no agonizing over skill point distribution.)

 

[Moggthegob]

Think of the roleplaying expansions that comes from a party with a rogue completely untrained in thievery and a cleric who took skill training and manages all the party's traps by finesse rather than whacking them with Dispell Magic. 3E basically hamstrung anyone who wanted to go against their class skills, if a Wizard tried to up Bluff cross-class he just couldn't, a +10 bluff when DC's are set expecting +20 is functionally useless. You're not "the shifty guy" you're "the guy who thinks he's shifty".

True to a point I suppose, but then again, the rules as they expanded gave ways to get around certain things like that. Although, at this point since everyone has "spells"(whether there called it or not), if you were interested in playing the smooth talking tricky guy, you'd still probably play the rogue, or if you were getting CRAZY, the warlock.

this is also where multiclassing/ Presitge classing came in. You wanna be a tricky wizard? Take levels in both wizard and Rogue, and later become an Arcane Trickster.

So overall, I feel straitjacketed to a point in this system, rather than 'liberated' as you seem to feel. Hopefully,it plays much better than it reads, and as I promised, I will provide an update on how it feels after playing the game a bit. Out of Curiosity, do you get a full feel for how the game is at 1st or should I start everyone off at 3rd?

 

[apoptosis]

You like rules/system mastery, something that 4e is actively trying to prevent.

Which, IMO, is a damn good thing, for the game.

Unless you happen to be someone who thoroughly enjoys rules/system mastery like the OP (and that is a lot of people)

Honestly Mogg, i dont think 4E will play much better to you. It was designed very well in achieving its game goals but those goals doubtfully coincide with what you enjoy out of gaming.

I think this is the one thing that is very apparent. That the system is very different than the previous versions with different goals in mind. From what I can tell it seems to have been designed very well but certain things that players enjoy from earlier editions are not well supported or are in fact almost antithetical to the 4E design.

 

[TwoSix]

Really? I will be interested to see how that plays out when we play through Keep on the Shadowfell. It certainly did not seem that way to me from reading,but perhaps it is the sort of thing that doesnt come out when simply reading the rules.

Simple, balanced rules aren't going to read as well as they play. You're not going to the see the rules for chess winning a Pulitzer.