Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Thoughts on 4E from an "Outsider"...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grossout" data-source="post: 3839423" data-attributes="member: 45646"><p>I posted once or twice on this site about a year ago, trying to get advice on whether or not 3E was for me. Folks were generally very helpful with advice and insight, but the consensus was that it would be a good idea to pick up the starter box set (or whatever it was called) to give it a try. So I did. It came with the complete players guide in soft cover as well as some minis and other stuff. Nice stuff. I checked out the complete set, reading the PG twice over and came to the conclusion that no, D&D 3.5E was not for me.</p><p></p><p>See, I haven’t played since 2E and even then, I guess it was a “stripped-down” version of 2E, though at the time, I didn’t know it. I was pretty young and just showed up to play my character. By “stripped-down”, I guess I mean that we didn’t use minis or worry too much about encumbrance, among a lot of other things that I now realize were part of the rulebook. The thing is, I had blast with it.</p><p></p><p>Combat was so simple and fun. We didn’t worry about being flat-footed, or having multiple attacks. I’d pretty much just declare who I was attacking, and which weapon I was going to use. Then I’d roll. Most of the time, my only other option was to run. Sure, we would try to “surprise” a group of monsters on occasion, but once the fight started, most of the combat tactics that I read about in 3E were nonexistent. I guess those concepts and tactics consisting of being able to move X amount of “squares” gives no excitement to me. If I’m fighting, I’m swinging my weapon or casting my spell. And if I’m losing, then I’m running. DM rolls to see if we’re pursued. I hate the exactness of squares. They're good for the DM's personal map, but seem to take away from the storytelling of the fight, not to mention a chore. </p><p></p><p>From what I can remember, if a battle lasted a long time, it was because the monster and/or the party were rolling low and missing – not because we were fanatically maneuvering around the room to gain a combat advantage. While I can see how some people would enjoy that part of the game, to me it’s a little too much like chess. I don’t want to think a whole lot while I fight. </p><p></p><p>Anyway… what am I getting at? It’s funny, but I couldn’t be more excited for 4E! I keep reading that the goal is to make it much easier to learn and run. Sounds like a great idea. The problem is, I still see that a lot of the concepts that turned me off about 3E are resurfacing (the rogue’s new “three step shift” move?). Ugh. </p><p></p><p>What I’m hoping for is a game that is completely playable without minis or stand-ins of any kind. A game I can play completely with my imagination. I thought that was the point in the first place? I’m not saying that the “chess-like” parts of the game should be removed, as they’re obviously not going to be. I would just like to play the game minus that stuff without throwing off the balance of the game. After all, if you take away all those moves, what fun would it be to play a rogue? </p><p></p><p>Couldn’t I still use some cool moves without being so specific about squares? Couldn’t I just declare to my DM that I’d like to “hide in the shadows and try to backstab the biggest orc?” Then he’d say “okay, roll for it and we’ll see if he notices you.” Instead of the “three step shift”, couldn’t I just declare that I’d like to “quick retreat” or whatever – maybe it could still be called “three step shift - without having to visibly see it on the table. Example: The orc is kicking my butt. I’m gonna use my quick retreat move to get out of the way, so he doesn’t get a free attack on me as I turn my back. I roll for it. It works. I’m out of the melee. Why do I need squares? I hate squares. Anyone agree with me, or am I way too out of touch? Anyone at least see where I’m coming from? </p><p></p><p>I guess I’m interested to see just how Wizards is going to make the game easier and faster. I don’t know how anyone could not be in favor of that. I like the concept of D&D enough that I would LOVE to DM sometime, something I’ve never done in any edition before. There’s no way I could run a 3.5E game. Here’s hoping squares or no squares, 4E is for me. </p><p></p><p>Any thoughts?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grossout, post: 3839423, member: 45646"] I posted once or twice on this site about a year ago, trying to get advice on whether or not 3E was for me. Folks were generally very helpful with advice and insight, but the consensus was that it would be a good idea to pick up the starter box set (or whatever it was called) to give it a try. So I did. It came with the complete players guide in soft cover as well as some minis and other stuff. Nice stuff. I checked out the complete set, reading the PG twice over and came to the conclusion that no, D&D 3.5E was not for me. See, I haven’t played since 2E and even then, I guess it was a “stripped-down” version of 2E, though at the time, I didn’t know it. I was pretty young and just showed up to play my character. By “stripped-down”, I guess I mean that we didn’t use minis or worry too much about encumbrance, among a lot of other things that I now realize were part of the rulebook. The thing is, I had blast with it. Combat was so simple and fun. We didn’t worry about being flat-footed, or having multiple attacks. I’d pretty much just declare who I was attacking, and which weapon I was going to use. Then I’d roll. Most of the time, my only other option was to run. Sure, we would try to “surprise” a group of monsters on occasion, but once the fight started, most of the combat tactics that I read about in 3E were nonexistent. I guess those concepts and tactics consisting of being able to move X amount of “squares” gives no excitement to me. If I’m fighting, I’m swinging my weapon or casting my spell. And if I’m losing, then I’m running. DM rolls to see if we’re pursued. I hate the exactness of squares. They're good for the DM's personal map, but seem to take away from the storytelling of the fight, not to mention a chore. From what I can remember, if a battle lasted a long time, it was because the monster and/or the party were rolling low and missing – not because we were fanatically maneuvering around the room to gain a combat advantage. While I can see how some people would enjoy that part of the game, to me it’s a little too much like chess. I don’t want to think a whole lot while I fight. Anyway… what am I getting at? It’s funny, but I couldn’t be more excited for 4E! I keep reading that the goal is to make it much easier to learn and run. Sounds like a great idea. The problem is, I still see that a lot of the concepts that turned me off about 3E are resurfacing (the rogue’s new “three step shift” move?). Ugh. What I’m hoping for is a game that is completely playable without minis or stand-ins of any kind. A game I can play completely with my imagination. I thought that was the point in the first place? I’m not saying that the “chess-like” parts of the game should be removed, as they’re obviously not going to be. I would just like to play the game minus that stuff without throwing off the balance of the game. After all, if you take away all those moves, what fun would it be to play a rogue? Couldn’t I still use some cool moves without being so specific about squares? Couldn’t I just declare to my DM that I’d like to “hide in the shadows and try to backstab the biggest orc?” Then he’d say “okay, roll for it and we’ll see if he notices you.” Instead of the “three step shift”, couldn’t I just declare that I’d like to “quick retreat” or whatever – maybe it could still be called “three step shift - without having to visibly see it on the table. Example: The orc is kicking my butt. I’m gonna use my quick retreat move to get out of the way, so he doesn’t get a free attack on me as I turn my back. I roll for it. It works. I’m out of the melee. Why do I need squares? I hate squares. Anyone agree with me, or am I way too out of touch? Anyone at least see where I’m coming from? I guess I’m interested to see just how Wizards is going to make the game easier and faster. I don’t know how anyone could not be in favor of that. I like the concept of D&D enough that I would LOVE to DM sometime, something I’ve never done in any edition before. There’s no way I could run a 3.5E game. Here’s hoping squares or no squares, 4E is for me. Any thoughts? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Thoughts on 4E from an "Outsider"...
Top