• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 4E Review of 4E from a Playtester

hmm

It's funny, the only thing I don't like in 4E, is this:

------
That is the single most important change to this system. I don’t care what you’re playing, whether the party’s wizard, its cleric, the fighter or its rogue, you will always have the option of doing something useful. You will never be forced (as long as you’re conscious) to simply sit and watch everyone else play because you’ve run out of spells or don’t have a high enough Spell Penetration or lack a weapon property to get through DR. Those days are done.
---------

My players and I still prefer certain special enemies, to be so powerful that mundane weapons for example can't hurt them, just as in real world mythology (hindu, christian, greek, etc)...if you take examples, do people who are christian, really believe a regular club or dagger would hurt Michael the Archangel, regardless of who swung it? We would say no. Or hurting a god who has taken avatar form? No, again, not to us. By the note above, that implies a regular stick could hurt a ghost... which I would refuse to allow if they did that (I doubt they would take it that far)

But we've decided this is so easy to house rule, that it's not worth skipping the great new features they are adding to 4E, so the stuff I have heard now from the reviews, comments have me very excited :)

I think even some house rules we were planning to do, won't bother since reading more detailed info, we like the changes and accept them. I think now, only some changes for wizards, clerics & a few specific monsters, due to how our campaigns work are in order :D :D

Cosmology changes are easy so don't even consider those true house rules.

*happy*

Sanjay
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Grimstaff said:
Why do I get the feeling that anyone who gives the new edition a good review is going to be accused of making a "marketing commercial" by you? :p

I bet you'll call the first negative review "refreshingly honest". :lol:

Do you honestly call that one "refreshingly honest", or "good review"?

I am pissed off because i want to know the new rules, and all I get is either someone raving or someone ranting, but they both avoid mentioning the actual stuff.

I want FACTS and I get only OPINIONS or more likely FEELINGS...

It's like watching the sport news and see the tv commentator go on and on about how wonderfully team A played so flawlessly perfectly etc, while team B sucked horribly... and forgetting to ever mention the match result :)
 

StarFyre said:
My players and I still prefer certain special enemies, to be so powerful that mundane weapons for example can't hurt them, just as in real world mythology (hindu, christian, greek, etc)...if you take examples, do people who are christian, really believe a regular club or dagger would hurt Michael the Archangel, regardless of who swung it? We would say no. Or hurting a god who has taken avatar form? No, again, not to us. By the note above, that implies a regular stick could hurt a ghost... which I would refuse to allow if they did that (I doubt they would take it that far)

While I haven't seen the Archangel Michael's 4th edition D&D stats (and highly doubt there are any), I suspect you'll have your way without even having to bother with houserules.

That is, I think it's likely that the whole 'always having something to do' thing is fueled more by at will powers (holy fire strike! haha, and again!) and the assumption that high level people have magic weapons than it is by the rules making sure that peasants with sticks can wound demigods on a natural 20.
 


Hussar said:
Umm, for those who say that he doesn't criticise, how about this? He pretty much states that he doesn'T like Epic and thinks very few people will play it.

I'm not sure I want to go past Heroic.
 

Li Shenron said:
I am pissed off because i want to know the new rules, and all I get is either someone raving or someone ranting, but they both avoid mentioning the actual stuff.
There's a ton of information given in the article. Most of it is just things you've already heard because you've been hanging out on a message board entirely devoted to the subject.
I want FACTS and I get only OPINIONS or more likely FEELINGS...
If you want facts on a game, you read the manual. Reviews exist precisely because they allow others to communicate their opinions. That's the entire point. If I read a review and it says that Fighters have 150 hit points, that doesn't do me the slightest bit of good. If I read a review and it says "Fighters are a lot sturdier than their companions and it just feels right," I've read a review that's at least somewhat useful.
 
Last edited:


One of the things the rules stress in the DMG is to get used to saying “YES” to players. Let them try weird things and how you should try to find ways to allow it. And the ruleset seems to allow it while remaining incredibly stable.
Yeah yeah, I know this is old advice that us veterans know backwards and forwards, but to have a version of "say 'yes' or roll the dice" make it into the DMG? That's an EPIC WIN right there.
 

Wormwood said:
Yeah yeah, I know this is old advice that us veterans know backwards and forwards, but to have a version of "say 'yes' or roll the dice" make it into the DMG? That's an EPIC WIN right there.
This was a triumph. I'm making a note here, "Huge success."
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top