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

[silentounce]

Also, when you get your hands on a Vorpal version would you rather roll two exploding D4's or one exploding D12?

Given all the 3,4,5+ [W] powers...the D4s. A lot more explosions.

Even 2[W] will, statistically, have one exploding dice.

Lemme see...
D12, Avg damge=6.5
D4, avg damage=2.5

So, 2[w]:
D12: 13
2D4:12

D 12 wins...but...statistically, one of the D4s will explode, so +2.5...
14.5 damage for the 2[W] falchion vs. the 2[W] greatsword. The greatsword will explode, statistically, once in six 2[W] attacks. The falchion...in EVERY 2[W] attack.

Falchions FTW!

Actually, if you do the math even further, yes the d4s do explode more often, but it's a d4 that is exploding.... If you work it all the way out, the d12 will do more damage even though it explodes less often. Granted the difference is only about .5 per attack on average.

 

[silentounce]

And a year from now 4berron comes out we will definitely try again,if only because we are eberron nuts and any new fluff on eberron is manna from heaven( exaggerated.. perhaps a tad). And to be perfectly fair,taking a second shot at it is more justice than we ever did VtM or M&M. So at the very least the D&D name has had that effect, we are willing to try again.

Sorry for the double post, but I thought you'd like to know that there is now Eberron content to convert KotS to that setting. It's probably a little late for you right now, though.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dufe/20080606a

 

[pemerton]

I think some disconnect, at least for me, is based on the huge number of fantasy RPGs I have played over the last 30 years. D&D has specific characteristics and enough of these are what constitutes a D&D play experience.

Many of the first fantasy RPGs were pretty much D&D clones so there was not a huge difference in play. Later on different games had much more discrimination in their feel of play and some of the present games like TSOY and Burning Wheel which have very different feel than classic D&D.

So having played so many fantasy RPGs, a game that is "D&D" has certain built-in expectations and these separate "D&D" from other fantasy games. Now what those criteria are and the line that is drawn is both completely arbitrary and frankly not very consistent even in my own mind.

People who are looking for certain D&Dism and want to play D&D vs another fantasy RPG, might not find them in 4E and shouldnt be a priori expecting 4E to fulfull these and really should know that 4E is very different than previous editions.

Conversely, many of the types of games that traditional D&D did well (killing things and taking their stuff and dungeoncrawls) seem like they can be done really well in 4E (and can be done well in other fantasy RPGs) but that they will be done without certain elements that D&D has traditionally used. So it becomes a question of are you wanting to play 4E to run a similar type of game (eg dungeoncrawl) or are you wanting to run a similar type of game but additionally with elements that are pretty unique to traditional D&D.

Apoptosis, I haven't played as wide a range of RPGs as you have but I've played a few. And I think you're right that "feeling like D&D" is about more than just dungeoncrawling.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

My own first read through has me pretty optimistic about the whole thing. One bit that jumped out was that there are much better tools for the DM to use as a jumping off point for winging things. In particular, the chart for improvising damage on page 42 of the DMG is something that should have existed in that or a similar form a long time ago.

Another interesting thing is that for generating a new character, you do not need to look up any numbers based on level progression. There is no Bab, no Saving throws. Anything that could possibly improve with level is always Level / 2. The only thing you really need to look up are the Race power / modifiers, the class powers you want, and your feats. Everything else can be generated more or less from memory.

Also of note is that the new PHB is much more 'newb' friendly. The introduction sequence is actually geared towards raw newbie players.

Finally, having all the info on critical hits does a great deal to ally one of my biggest concerns. The 3rd edition method had the confirm roll in order to prevent the 'only 20s would hit' problem. It turns out that 'All 20's are Criticals' was not entirely true. The actual rule is 'All 20's are criticals if the resulting attack roll would be enough to hit the target defense. Otherwise its just a guaranteed hit'.

I have not really delved too much into the individual classes, but based on what I have seen, I do not expect that the various class powers will seem too similar. While it may be balanced to swap out a Warlocks 1st level At Will power with a Cleric, it does not mean that a Clerics powers will feel too similar to the Warlocks.

The real test will be when you start playing it.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Rashak Mani]

ROFL> This summarizes the last campaign I ran as well. Oddly enough, it was players favorite campaign I've run in years. Apparently, I actually DM better when thinking on my feet. Who knew.

So true. I fondly remember an Earthdawn campaign... I basically winged the whole thing. I even made up a monster race with 3 different castes.

Player's went wild and loved it. When one of them asked to see the monster stats, which I naturally didn't have, I said it was secret ... hehe

 

[woodelf]

I agree with you.

I am probably less liberal on what is D&D. Generally if I want to play D&D, i want to play the older versions of it (I prefer 1rst and 2nd the most actually). this is because I want the oddities in mechanics that are D&D (yes nostalgia kicks in definitely)

I have shelves full of other fantasy RPGs and some play similar to "D&D" while other play very differently (like TSOY)

For me 4E is less D&D and more "another fantasy RPG." This is not bad (frankly i think they did the right thing in really redeveloping the game) but for people who are wanting a D&D feel (inclusive of all the crazy and inconsistent mechanics of earlier versions) and not just a fantasy RPG, 4E i feel will fail to deliver.

Oddly, I think 4E is very well suited to one-shot dungeon crawls of the old modules that we used to do and is probably awesome at say White Plume Mountain, but the game (for me IMHO) wont have the same feel as using the 1ed or 2ed (or 3ed) rules. TSOY could also do a cool job in WPM but it really wont have the same feel either.

Well, my preliminary opinion is almost the opposite. That is, D&D3E never felt like "D&D" to me--not from reading the books, and not from playing it, extensively. D&D4E feels a little odd in some ways--warlords, tieflings--but overall, from reading [not likely to play it any time soon], it feels like "D&D" to me. When i have an itch to play "D&D", D&D3E can't scratch it. I tried. But i suspect D&D4E could.

Not sure i can put a finger on it, but i'll try. I know it's not specific classes or races--we always played with lots of unofficial classes, and weird races, Back In The Day(TM)--because Arcana Unearthed can scratch my D&D itch just fine. I think part of it is the level of complexity. I think complexity is part of it--D&D3E was just too damn complex, D&D4E seems a bit more straightforward, for the most part. Though i fear actual play will prove me wrong on this point (not that it's not simpler than D&D3E, but that it's not simple enough for what i think of as "D&D"). The fact that the classes seem a bit more monolithic may be part of it--the "take a level here, a couple levels there" approach to multiclassing in D&D3E is great in many ways, but definitely changes the feel from any previous edition of D&D--in all previous editions, you picked a thing (even if that thing was a multiclass option), and that's what you were for the entire character's career (well, barring dual-classed characters, but the penalties were so severe that i think i saw one person do it, once--by taking only one level in a class before switching). To me, D&D4E has restored that feel, while still giving you a lot more flexibility in the details of what exactly you can do.

OK, i'm all out. So, not a very compelling argument, i admit. But, i can still toss out my general impression: reading D&D4E makes me wax nostalgic for D&D. It feels like someone built a "better D&D", for some value of 'better' (that i'm not sure i agree with--*really* miss having a skillmonkey class). Reading D&D3E never made me think "this game is D&D"--it always felt like someone took lots of bits and pieces of D&D, and built a new, different, game out of them.

 

[woodelf]

D12, Avg damge=6.5
D4, avg damage=2.5

So, 2[w]:
D12: 13
2D4:12

Um, unless there's something else going on here when you double a weapon's damage, 2.5x4=10.

 

[woodelf]

The interesting question is not whether 4th is D&D (because regardless of what we here might say, its quite frankly, D&D). The question that interests me is, where do you draw the line, and by you I mean you all in general?

Woodgrain/White box? Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry? Basic/Expert/Companions/Masters/Immortals? 1st Ed AD&D? 1st Ed Unearthed Arcana? 2nd Ed AD&D? 2nd Ed class handbooks? 3.0/3.5? 4th Edition? Or somewhere in between those? Maybe Garys departure from TSR? WotCs take over?

AFAIC, everything you list is "D&D", except for D&D3[.5]E. Personally, everything published with the D&D label has felt of a kind, except for the Player's Option stuff, and D&D3[.5]E--those two pretty much feel the same as each other to me (though one is much better executed), and neither of them feels like "D&D".

But i'm not sure you actually wanted answers to your [rhetorical?] question, so i'll stop now.