D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[BlueBlackRed]

Yes, for the time being.

 

[Crothian]

FWIW, one of my friends and I both decided to make dragonborn warlords as our first 4E characters, neither of us knowing that the other was doing so.

Our characters were virtually identical. Same feats, exploits, and ability scores (with one 2-point difference). YMMV.

If the most important thing and the most defining thing is the stats of the characters then this will be true. But with histories and personalities having similar or the same stats, race, and class becomes less important. I had a great campaign once where unbeknowst to anyone else I had the exact same character as another PC. We were both fighters and even though the numbers were exact the characters were very different.

 

[Remathilis]

Couple of POV's were once you took away the flavor text every attack is identical to the next, the versatility that Wizards once had is now gone. Yes I know they don't run out of spells now, but quantity does not equal quality. 3.5 I could have 3 human 1st lvl wizards that could still be completely different, in 4E that is not possible. Also the "forcing" of needing each role filled does suck.

I wanted to highlight this fallacy...

In BECMI: a 1st level magic-user had 2 1st level spells, chosen by the DM.
In 1e: a 1st level magic-user had between 4-9 1st level spells, depending on his Int score.
In 2e: a 1st level mage had 3d4 (3-12) 1st level spells. Specialists gained 1 additional in their specialty.
In 3e: a 1st level wizard had 3+int mod (4-7) plus all cantrips (19). A 1st level sorcerer had 4 0-level and 2 1st level.
In 4e: A 1st level wizard has 2 at-will, 1 encounter, and 2 dailies (choose 1 per day) as well as 3 rituals. (if he has expanded spel book, it increases by 1 daily, if he's human he has one more at-will).

So assuming each was a non-specialist and had an 18 in their caster score...

BECMI: 2
1e: 9
2e: 12 (max roll)
3e Wiz: 26!
3e Sor: 6
4e: 8

Clearly, the 19 cantrips for the 3e wizard creates the biggest boost. Remove them, and you find the wizard is only at a modest 7, much more in line.

 

[Dykstrav]

4E certainly gets a group together, that's for sure. People are very interested in playing it.

Still, I think that 3.5 is a better overall system. It's more complex because it's more detailed, and that isn't always a bad thing. Combat also seems to drag in 4E because everyone has so may hit points. I'd love to do more 3.5 if I could get the players that would be interested in doing it.

I'm not bashing 4E. It's a fun game to play, but there are definitely things I don't like about it.

 

[Halivar]

3E is key lime pie. Very tastey.

4E is key lime cheesecake. Like, holy crap, who doesn't like key lime cheesecake?

 

[Mephistopheles]

I played my first session of 4E last weekend and I had a great time. There are issues, of course, but 4E is in good company there.

It was refreshing to get a couple of combats in but only spend about one-third of our game session in combat, with the other two-thirds spent on exploration, role play, and a bit of goofing around (it was about a six hour session). So I'll give 4E credit for putting the focus back where I want it to be. I didn't feel 4E leaned on the role play because, to be honest, when we weren't in combat we weren't really playing 4E aside from the odd skill check, we were just playing our characters.

Thinking about the session afterwards I think it managed to highlight what I used to love about D&D that I feel was lost with 3E to the overwhelming complexity of the system: I like combat to be fast and not overly technical, and spend the majority of the time on exploration and role play. It's only been one session so far so I'll see how things pan out, but so far so good.

I'm sure I'll still be playing older editions of the game, mainly OD&D, BECMI, and 1E, but I certainly won't avoid playing 4E.

 

[Jack Colby]

Yes and no, mostly no.

I am running it, and there's a lot to like. I love it in theory! But in actually playing I am finding the constant need to keep track of powers and little bonuses here and there for attacks, etc. is becoming more trouble than it's worth. Especially because each PCs record keeping has essentially been moved beyond just a character sheet. Now we have power cards and the like, and those take up space at the table.

I think it's time to resort to some house rules, some ignored rules, and a lot more rulings as opposed to rules. By the book isn't cutting it for me.

 

[Jack Colby]

I wanted to highlight this fallacy...

In BECMI: a 1st level magic-user had 2 1st level spells, chosen by the DM.
In 1e: a 1st level magic-user had between 4-9 1st level spells, depending on his Int score.
In 2e: a 1st level mage had 3d4 (3-12) 1st level spells. Specialists gained 1 additional in their specialty.
In 3e: a 1st level wizard had 3+int mod (4-7) plus all cantrips (19). A 1st level sorcerer had 4 0-level and 2 1st level.
In 4e: A 1st level wizard has 2 at-will, 1 encounter, and 2 dailies (choose 1 per day) as well as 3 rituals. (if he has expanded spel book, it increases by 1 daily, if he's human he has one more at-will).

So assuming each was a non-specialist and had an 18 in their caster score...

BECMI: 2
1e: 9
2e: 12 (max roll)
3e Wiz: 26!
3e Sor: 6
4e: 8

Clearly, the 19 cantrips for the 3e wizard creates the biggest boost. Remove them, and you find the wizard is only at a modest 7, much more in line.

Clearly, you need to do a better job. What was the fallacy?

 

[Halivar]

Now we have power cards and the like, and those take up space at the table.

I used to love the idea of power cards. It was great in theory, but poor in practice. I ended up converting my Excel character sheet so I could have all my attack powers, with all the text, on the sheet itself. I find that I, on the players' side of the screen, at least, now never have to crack open the PHB at the table. This is quite a coup for the game system, from my perspective.

 

[Masquerade]

Absolutely. 4e does for me exactly what i always wanted D&D to do for me.

That's my honest opinion. ^^