log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

Fifth Element

First Post
???
My 3.5 evoker had tons of versatility. Energy Spheres had entirely different application from Wingbind, which had totally different applications from Firebrand, which had a completely different application from Moonbow. No one spell does it all....well, Wish maybe. :cool:
By "versatilily", I think the OP had more in mind than "the ability to cause damage in several different ways." 4E gives that, so clealy that can't be the complaint.

I think the point is that all 4E wizards are basically evokers now.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Irda Ranger

First Post
D&D I have been doing for the greater part of my life and I hope it continues but now it seems like it's on a lifeline. Also this is not to bash 4E just wondering what people's honest opinion is.

Thanks for your responses
I love it. Best edition so far, hands down. I believe that though because I see several things differently than your first group.


once you took away the flavor text every attack is identical to the next, - Although this was also my first impression on reading 4E, it's just not true in practice. Many little things you don't notice at first end up making a big difference at the table. If your first group hasn't actually given 4E an honest shot for a few sessions though they probably won't understand. It's something you have to experience.



the versatility that Wizards once had is now gone ... 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. - This is true, but that's because what's now "the Wizard" is really "the Transmuter/Evoker." He's like a 2E specialist Wizard. Once they come out with Enchanter, Necromancer and Illusionist classes you'll see that more easily. But while you're right there's no generalist Wizard any more, that's not a bad thing. The generalist Wizards of 1E and 2E made every other class obsolete by the time they hit high levels. The new Wizard lets the other classes shine and doesn't hog the spotlight.

Also, don't forget Rituals. Both Quality and Quantity can be found there.
 

Darkthorne

First Post
Irda,
You can't cast any ritual in combat, so when I listed the "combat spells" of 3.5 I deliberately took out anything that I could not see having an immediate combat effect to do a more "fair" comparison.
As for clarification for the versatility if you have a 4E human wizard s/he'll know 3 at wills, when you add 2 more human wizards they will be duplicated in what powers they choose. 3.5 if I had 3 wizards not one of the spells has to be duplicated and I am not taking splat books into account either. If they put the magic items back into the dmg and used those extra pages for more at-wills, encounter & dailies that would have been better. I also think if you could learn more than just 2 at wills that would be extremely better
 

Maggan

Writer of The Bitter Reach
Maggan,
In regards to that encounter the ONLY reason I made such an impact was because they were undead (turning) and my healing ability. If they were not undead we probably would have been jam much sooner.

Yeah, pretty much a standard scenario for what clerics do best; turn undead and heal people. Classic D&D.

That's also why I don't really think that is a good example of how D&D4 "forces" groups to have different roles in the party, in comparison to earlier editions. D&D has always had the assumption that a broad set of skills and abilities are important to party survival.

You've always been better off if you have some fighters to soak up damage, some rogues to scout and backstab, some clerics to turn undead and heal, and wizards to shoot things.

So we had tanks (fighters) before D&D4, we had artillery (wizards) before D&D4, we had support troops (rogues) before D&D4. And healers (clerics)

D&D4 has put the light on those concepts much more clearly than before, and this might feel to some that it is a new concept, but to me it just feels like the same assumptions that always shaped D&D:

- A mix of classes, with different skills and abilities, makes for the best chance of survival in a diverse dungeon environment.

So D&D4 has roles in addition to classes, codifying a concept that's been around for ages. Maybe it's too integrated in the mechanics now for some players to like it, but for us at least, it works out nicely.

/M
 

Kzach

First Post
Originally Posted by PHB4E
Each character class specializes in one of four basic unctions in combat: control and area offense, defense, healing and support, and focused offense. The roles embodied by these functions are controller, defender, leader, and striker. The classic adventuring party includes one character of each role: wizard, fighter, cleric, and rogue.
Character roles identify which classes can stand in for each other. For example, if you don’t have a cleric in your party, a warlord serves just as well in the leader role.
Roles also serve as handy tools for building adventuring parties. It’s a good idea to cover each role with at least one character. Lest the Gods of D&D teleport to your location and smite thee with a d20 Club of Unconsciousness and defile your body with tattoos of butterflies and "I luv Britney" writing inside of hearts. If you have five or six players in your group, it’s best to double up on defender first, then striker. If you don’t have all the roles covered, that’s okay too—it just means that the characters need to compensate for the missing function.
Fixed it for Mr. Wise.

Oh, and nice to see another purchaser of the 4e PDF's!
 

Kzach

First Post
As for clarification for the versatility if you have a 4E human wizard s/he'll know 3 at wills, when you add 2 more human wizards they will be duplicated in what powers they choose. 3.5 if I had 3 wizards not one of the spells has to be duplicated and I am not taking splat books into account either. If they put the magic items back into the dmg and used those extra pages for more at-wills, encounter & dailies that would have been better. I also think if you could learn more than just 2 at wills that would be extremely better
So you're comparing a system that is eight years mature and has thousands of third-party products to a system that is a few months old and has no third party products (that I know of) released for it yet?

You're right, 4e isn't for you. Come back in eight years when it's ready enough for you.
 

Subumloc

First Post
Totally doin' it for me.

The group I DM never had much commitment to the rulebooks, so the streamlined play contributed to their involvement (and for the RP part, I'd say it's unchanged since the beginning of the campaign in 3.5). OTOH, I find that my job as a DM is a lot easier, and that less cruch preparation time = more fluff preparation time. ;)
 


Raven Crowking

First Post
So you're comparing a system that is eight years mature and has thousands of third-party products to a system that is a few months old and has no third party products (that I know of) released for it yet?

You're right, 4e isn't for you. Come back in eight years when it's ready enough for you.

Isn't that when 5e is coming out? :lol:
 

Darkthorne

First Post
Kzach,
I'd appreciate if you stopped with the "you're complaining" rhetoric, it's inflammitory. If you read my post I cleary stated not using any splat books in my comparison, so no not 8 years worth of product, just 3.5 PHB vs 4E PHB nothing more in regards to the choice of spells. I do like 4E but I am not about to say it's perfect, just stating what I see as obvious issues. If you have to wait 8 years for one version to match a previous one's for versatility (not ease or play or anything else) just on the core PHB then something IS amiss. If 4e is the second coming for you, awesome. I'm glad you're having fun with it, but that does not mean that anyone else that finds it lacking is a bunch or complainers/whiners.
Thank You
 

Brown Jenkin

First Post
Not doing it for me. I think it is a good tactical miniatures game, but that is not what I am looking for. I have never enjoyed mianatures games.
 

Scribble

First Post
I'm loving it, and so is my group. I think it took the good parts of 3e and the good parts of earlier editions and mashed them into something better.
 


Desdichado

Adventurer
Not playing it, and not planning to. We just finished up a 3.5 game, are about to start a BRP Cthulhu game.

Although we haven't really looked this far ahead, another 3.5 game (Shackled City) seems to be the front runner for the next game after that. In six months or so.

After that, we've got Star Wars, Shadowrun and even Traveller proposed. Nobody is proposing a 4e game, and the proposals already on the table will probably keep us busy until 5e at least.
 

Benimoto

First Post
As for clarification for the versatility if you have a 4E human wizard s/he'll know 3 at wills, when you add 2 more human wizards they will be duplicated in what powers they choose. 3.5 if I had 3 wizards not one of the spells has to be duplicated and I am not taking splat books into account either. If they put the magic items back into the dmg and used those extra pages for more at-wills, encounter & dailies that would have been better. I also think if you could learn more than just 2 at wills that would be extremely better
I was just making a new 3.5e character this last weekend to play a Pathfinder scenario (which still uses the 3.5 rules now) and I have to say, that while 3.x gives you more choices than 4e, a lot more of them are "false choices".

For example, while you can theoretically pick any of the 39ish spells as your 2-3 choices at first level, only 4 of them do any sort of direct damage. About another 12-17 are reasonable non-damaging choices by my estimation, and then the rest are stuff like erase or hold portal, which while they might be useful on scrolls or something later, are way too narrowly focused to be a good choice for a 1st level caster.

Pathfinder adventures are pretty combat-heavy, so I'd really want to have a damaging spell, and of the 4, probably magic missile, since it's the only ranged one and I have like 5 HP. And then I have another 1-2 spell picks, but they're coming off a pretty small list too.

And then, after about 4 rounds of combat, I'm out of spells and my versatility is reduced to making potshots with my crossbow, while the 4e wizard still has 2-3 at wills.

So yeah, 3e theoretically has a lot more versatility, but when it counts, it only has a little more, and sometimes even less.
 

Felon

First Post
That's an interesting point of view. Why do you believe that? Erm, let's say, what in the books makes you think that?
Well, I'd already covered a lot of it in a previous post in the second page of this thread. There are a lot of 4e rules that just have sloppy mechanics, fostered by a philosophy that goes something like "a flawed, ham-handed rule is better than an elegant, comprehensive rule if the former is simpler than the latter: make rules for people who prefer the straightforwardness of a club over the intricacy of a rapier".

If you're into game mechanics, if you like to tinker with that element of the game, then you don't want to look under the hood and see duct tape and rubberbands. Some people would look at that and say "hey, it gets the job done, so who cares?" These are the people who want a nice, light game. The mechanic finds it off-putting, but even worse, it limits the potential to tinker further.

So, for instance, when a designer's faced with figuring out how grappling should work, with all the elements that come with it (establishing a hold, escaping, throwing, choking, squeezing, dragging), or how rules should apply to incorporeal or amorphous opponents (can they be grappled, pushed/pulled/slid, knocked prone, etc), he's got the choice to use the club or the rapier. Be meticulous, or just duct-tape the sucker. In the end, D&D went for "grabbed = immobilized, no pinning, no squeezing", and "incorporeal = half damage, otherwise treat just like everything else". There's a spartan principle at work that some folks like, but the mechanic has good reason to regard D&D as a "lite" game, and if he wants something deeper, he can't tinker within the system. If I want to pit the players against a foe that they can't deal with just by cycling through their power cards, then I'm working against 4e's grain, not with it.
 


Kzach

First Post
I'd appreciate if you stopped with the "you're complaining" rhetoric, it's inflammitory.
Lol, and your entire post from the very start isn't?

You are complaining. That's all you've done so far in this entire thread. Stating that isn't inflammatory when it's the simple truth. If you're friends don't like 4e so much, then don't play it.

The fact of you asking someone not to be inflammatory in a thread designed to inflame is breaking my irony meter. Don't worry, I'll leave your thread alone from now on. There's already enough crap in it.
 

So far, we've tried a couple of sessions of 4e, just to get the mechanics down. They work well enough, but they don't incite our collective imagination much on their own.

it may be that 4e is good because it gets the mechanics out of everyone's way, but we kind of prefer rules that actually support what we're trying to do a bit more than that.

Oh how I wish 4E got the mechanics out of everyone's way.

We are playing 4E to give it a good test run but I can't say that I am overly impressed. It does the job of providing a game that my friends and I can all play together but to really " Do it" for me, a game has to make me want to run it. I don't want to run 4E.
 

catsclaw227

First Post
I think it is a good tactical miniatures game, but that is not what I am looking for. I have never enjoyed mianatures games.

For me, 4e has a nice tactical miniatures subsystem, but it is far from all it is. Roleplaying is the same as it has been in all past editions.

The mechanics seem to better mesh with the RP aspect of the game better than 3.x did for me.I am not as worried about having to justify every NPC power or ability with a core or splat book entry so that my players don't cry foul. Monster deisgn is quick and easy, Skill challenges, while it still needs some work is a far cry better than the binary win/lose of 3.x skills (or lack of a skills mechanic in some previous editions)

4e is doing it for me. I am having fun DMing again, I am not spending hours putting together NPCs, reading 2 page stat blocks and having my encounters die with a bad save.

I am also finding it very easy to convert 3.5 adventures, so I can still use that whole part of my 3.5 library. We are running Age of Worms for 4e and the players are now 12th level. There is a LOT of depth in the way combats are played out, they are definitely not the same every time.

There is also a lot less of the pre-programmed aspect of entering combat (buff, nuke, exit) and the in-between recovery mechanics are elegant enough to be able to disregard the 3.x requirement of CLW wands and such.

We have also removed the 15-min adventuring day from our game (duck, here comes the questionable "we NEVER had that problem" arguments).

All in all, a very good experience for me.

I liked 3.x for along time, though it became a real chore to DM from about 12th level on. I liked 2e and 1e when I played them as well, but there were too many arbitrary and ambiguous rules and wonky disconnected subsystems.

I say, if you like your version of the game, then play it!
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top