D&D 4E Got to play 4E today

Thulcondar said:
Gadzooks... That sucker would've paid for a new car on eBay. I am envious. (Where'd you do your demo, btw?)
I'd rather not say on the off chance that it wasn't supposed to be passed around. And unfortunately I was in the back corner so I could take off and run, which was my first thought after I regained sphincter control.

Perhaps so, but they all seem to almost be "too special", if you know what I mean. One imagines the local innkeeper, rather than simply pouring an ale and sliding it down the bar, invoking his Mead of Intoxication at-will power, attacking at Will +3 (cumulative with each attack) until the target passes out. Save means they just tip at 2x normal rate. ;-)

Sometimes just hitting it with your sword is the most appropriate thing to do.
Taking the example of the barkeep, remember that these are powers to be used primarily in combat. So the barkeep might have a special knockout attack when using a beer mug, or the bat he keeps behind the counter.

Exactly my point. Why do I need "priestly shield" to have a special power when you can have the same effect by saying "priests can attack with X bonus". It almost seems like they're actively discouraging "mundane" weapon-play.

Well, as others have mentioned, it makes thematic sense for the priest to invoke prayers as he attacks. And all the martial based classes are using mundane weapon-play, they can just do more when they attack.

Absolutely, and I made note of that in my original post. Although I would say that when one of my players says "I blend into the crowd", there's a lot of variables that go into the calculation of how successful that player is going to be. I didn't get a sense that there was any calculation of preparation, appropriateness, etc. But then again, it was just a demo...

Assuming that the skill system works more or less like the 3e version, and all the evidence is that it does, there will be all sorts of circumstance modifiers that can be used to account for the fact that its a tall elf trying to blend into a crowd of halfling children. I think the main point of the skill challenge was to emphasize that they were making the skills into a cohesive "encounter" rather than the 3e mindset where occasionally you'll just have a point where a specific skill must be rolled against a specific DC.

Again, that's something we won't really know until the books come out. I retain my open mind. Skeptical, but still open. And I'd play again tomorrow. And at Origins, and GenCon (if there is one...). The long-term options just seem rather limited. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Joe
Well, just remember that the books are suggestions for rules, not the written in stone rules that WotC will force upon you.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thank you for this post, Thulcondar.

As someone who played BECMI/AD&D1e/AD&D2e for years without a single miniature, I can understand where you're coming from on the matter.
 

PeelSeel2 said:
Wow!! This thread is amazing. A person posted his thoughts on 4e after a demo and it turned into a snark fest. Great Job!! Some of you are real religious zealots.


And this relieves the snark-fest how? (That is a rhetorical question - the answer is that it doesn't.)

Listen up, folks! I am not sure how many times we have to say this, but I'll say it until I get blue in the face if I have to - we expect you to show respect to your fellow posters. I don't care how much you disagree with them, or how stupid you think they are being - snark and attacks and insults are not acceptable.

If you are going to be disrespectful, don't post, please.

If this is somehow not clear, or you have questions, please feel free to e-mail any of the mods - our e-mails are in a post stickied to the top of the Meta forum. Thank you.
 

I'm also one of those "use minis in 1e/2E when playing spellcaster otherwise don't need it".

Definitely became a fan of the minis after ANOTHER argument about angles and lightning bolts (anyone remember lightninh bolts could bounce? That's what made them great indoors but man, talk about arguments about angles and positioning...)
 


Thulcondar said:
We must resolve to disagree on this point, I'm afraid.

I must say this spate of 1E-bashing has been fun as far as it's gone (which isn't very), I was kinda hoping people would be happy to see a review of 4E from someone who's played it who comes from a different perspective, rather than use that as a jumping-off point to bash 1E.

But as has been said in another thread here, this is a 4E board now, and one must expect a certain hostility to other versions of the game. Infinitely and inherently superior though they may be. <grin>

Joe

I'm expecting diaglo to pop in with a "OD&D is the One True Game" quote anytime ;)
 

I agree that Joe's done a great job of not rising to the bait.

(And as far as my 3.x vs 1E comment goes... 1E is certainly not better in many, many ways, most notably 3.x is a far more polished rules set, but overall I find 1E more fun to play. In fact, I think that 2E, a HORRIBLE game mechanically, was overall more fun to play than 3.x. I admit it might just have been my age at the time, as I haven't played it since 3 came out, but I don't remember ever having the frustrations that many games of 3.x brings.

This is what I like about 4E, to me they've kept everything good about 3.x and brought back what was good about earlier editions. (While leaving out the obvious stupidity of some of the earlier stuff.) They added a few things that I think are a bit squiffy, but not much.

Fitz
 

Yes, thanks for taking the time to post. I do have to say, that compared to what we have heard from the other "official" playtests, your DM sounds slightly crappy, but then again, it can be hard to judge based on your post.

Cheers
 

Skill challenge comments

I'd just like to chirp in on that I like the skill challenges.

First, it gets to the heart of what makes D&D so much different from any game before and most games after it: Team Play.

Before, there was a tendacy to give pass or fail checks. Usually one character was a star (ranger/rogue) and the others (2 skill point classes) were backups at best, liabilities at worst. One player did alot of constributing, and quite often I recall my barbarian sitting on the sideline while the party rogue tried something, and all I did was freshen up my drink.

This led to balance issues as skill type characters were quite useful, and the 2 point classes never got anywhere. It was not uncommon for a party to have one PC with +10 or +15 to a skill while other PCs were working with straight stat modifiers. How do you challenge one player without dooming another?

Now a system comes along for a cooperative effort. I approve.

Second, this actually breeds creativity. You have to justify your use of your skills. It can be as detailed as you like, or simple.. depending on your group or DM. But in the end, you need to figure out what to use and how you can use it.

I see this as giving us some room for creative and odd solutions. I think almost all of us will agree, that the times we came up with wild and crazy plans to do something are the most fun. (Ah, luring a blind ooze out of hiding with a backpack on a rope). Sure we may love that critical hit at just the right time.. but I think it's the oddball solutions that make the game memorable.

This system opens up a way for these crazy plans to have a little bit of mechanics to them... and to function as a group. And group stuff is important. And fun.



Third, I see signs that Wizards is pushing towards a more unified DM style. The reason I suspect, is that they will attempt (hopefully sucessfully) to create a unified online campaign, where a DM can post "I need 5 level 3 adventurers to rescue a fair maiden (Fri Noon-4pm EDT)" and anyone can just pick up their 3rd level character and hop in.

This would be great fun, as alot of us like to keep our characters instead of rolling a new one for each campaign.

Now I've played MUXes with D&D character before. Multiple volenteer DM ran different quest. Many were quite fun, but bookkeeping and character balance were nightmares (The guy with good stat rolls outshining unlucky people). There was so much oversight needed to keep character power in check.. and DM style was hugely swingy.

Example: DM A decides to make a mostly combat encounter.. non optimized players are marginalized. Yet DM B decides to add some heavy skill encounters.. and players who didn't invest in the right skills were left in the dust. Also some Dms thought DC 15 was fine.. other DMs liked DC 20 or 25 skill checks.. It was a crapshoot. ( I remember an encounter where none of the randomly assembled party had a point of swim skill)

Now this looks like an easy system for a whole group to contribute, combined with (I am assuming) guidelines for level appropriate DCs. An easy way to standardize skill use.. and also to make it up on the fly. Even new DMs can add skill based stuff without skill encounters being 'The Rogue Show'


Lastly, pure roleplay will always be there. You can use roleplay to add flavor to skill checks, or if your group likes, invoke Rule Zero and base success on roleplay without rolls, your choice. But I see this systme as breeding clever roleplay, not destroying or deemphasizing it.
 
Last edited:

People still play 1st edition?

I find it amazing that people still play 1st edition. I got into D&D just before the 1e DMG came out and while I loved the game, it's not exactly playable.

Second edition came out, and it was really 1.5e - none of the problems had been fixed, they had just tinkered around the edges. Still unplayable. After playing for some time, I had to resort to so many house rules that I effectively had an entirely new game.

3e for the first time presented a game of D&D that you could actually play. Out of the books! Without house rules! Well...mostly. You still had to fix the hit points so that a few bad rolls didn't kill a character.

I guess it's a personality thing, but the complete and utter lack of internal logic in 1st and 2nd edition for me destroys the game. So you roll a d6 to open a door? But % dice to bend bars? And initiative on a d10?

As for keeping track as a DM - are you serious? What about keeping track of spell effects? One of the great things about 4e is that it's so much easier to run a combat. Monsters no longer have 47 possible things they could do and only (on average) about four rounds to do them in.

I'm amazed that people still play 1e - but, whatever floats your boat.
 

Remove ads

Top