Very first thoughts after reading 4e PHB

[VanRichten]

1st level characters all tend to look the same at the moment, but that's because we haven't seen any splats yet. Roll up a few 3.0e fighters without hitting any splats and you'll see they all pretty much look the same as well.

Check out Pathfinder. Free download and you can see ideas that should have been 4E.

 

[VanRichten]

Out of curiousity, have you played it?

I have played the follow versions of D&D:

Red Box
1E AD&D
2E AD&D
5th Age Dragonlance
3E D&D
3.5E D&D

For MMO accredidation let me add the follow:

Everquest
World of Warcraft
City of Heroes
Requiem
Star Wars Galaxies
Neverwinter Nights

So to directly answer your question no. I probably will but I was asked my thoughts after reading it not after playing it by the OP. Based on that I gave my opinion.

After extensive years of playing and dming this is not the D&D I have grown up to love and enjoy. Also after my extensive time with MMOs I can safely say without even playing this system that reading the book it feels to me like MMO on paper.

 

[Eluxis]

In fact, I think it's sufficiently different that those converting from 3e will have more difficulty than those approaching it anew.

Some are even losing their minds. It's sparked more nerdrage than any edition of D&D to come out since, well, since 3.5.

Nerds do hate it so when someone touches their stuff.

 

[Branduil]

I have played the follow versions of D&D:

Red Box
1E AD&D
2E AD&D
5th Age Dragonlance
3E D&D
3.5E D&D

For MMO accredidation let me add the follow:

Everquest
World of Warcraft
City of Heroes
Requiem
Star Wars Galaxies
Neverwinter Nights

So to directly answer your question no. I probably will but I was asked my thoughts after reading it not after playing it by the OP. Based on that I gave my opinion.

After extensive years of playing and dming this is not the D&D I have grown up to love and enjoy. Also after my extensive time with MMOs I can safely say without even playing this system that reading the book it feels to me like MMO on paper.

I only ask because I've heard similar sentiment from people who have only read the books and then when they play it they love it or at least enjoy it.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Check out Pathfinder. Free download and you can see ideas that should have been 4E.

To be absolutely fair, I haven't really looked at Pathfinder since the first couple distributions came out.

Parts of what I saw were good - buffing up the non-caster classes so they could compete a little more, the reworking of feats was good, though it made them more powerful.

Then there were some things that looked like they were taken from 4e - combined skills was a big one I noticed, along with the unlimited cantrips per day for casters.

Then the bad - the biggest one for me was increasing the power of spellcasters even more. I mean, it's pretty clear in 3.x that once you are above about level 9 or so, casters totally dominate the field. There's no way a fighter can compete with a wizard or a cleric at level 15, for example. I thought that they were taking steps to correct that
with their improvements to the non-caster classes, but then they just bumped casters up another notch to even things out again.

I haven't played 4e yet (first game this Sunday!), but just by reading it I can tell I'll have a lot less complaints with it than 3.x.

If Pathfinder is what you want though, go for it, don't let me stop you.

 

[Dausuul]

It feels like they took all the ideas they had for classes. Poored them into a big pot. Stirred it up and then filled up several bowls. Each bowl being each class, but everyone got the same amount. The flavor for each class really feels the same, mechanically they are the same. Where is the spice that seperates each? Might as well call them all pablum.

They look that way on paper, true. But I have to second the sentiment that what looks boring and repetitive when you read it in the rulebook plays out very differently in the actual game.

As for the DMG it provides little to a DM that he does not already know. Most of it could have been put into the players handbook alone.

I have found the 4E DMG to be the most useful and helpful DMG of any edition to date. And I've been playing and running D&D games for twenty years. This DMG actually includes useful guidelines and suggestions for getting the most out of the 4E ruleset, from a DMing perspective.

However for those of us out there who don't like it we will go with Pathfinder.

That is of course your choice. I'm curious to see where Pathfinder goes, but I can't imagine actually switching to that system.

 

[greatamericanfolkher]

To be completely honest my first thought after reading the book and immediately making a character was, "Where is the oil?" They have lanterns in the equipment, but no oil. I was baffled for a while.

No oil, no shovels, no holy water or acid flasks. It’s like the 4e designers have never robbed a tomb before.

 

[Eluxis]

No oil, no shovels, no holy water or acid flasks. It’s like the 4e designers have never robbed a tomb before.

And no 10' pole! No chalk! Are they just trying to get dungeon delvers killed?

At least they didn't forget the hammer and pitons.

 

[Cadfan]

Not really. You're paying a feat to bump your damage die by d2 (over the longsword) or to get +1 damage (over the greatsword). Strictly by the numbers, Bastard Sword Proficiency is worth about the same as Weapon Focus.

It stacks with weapon focus. That's what makes it broken.

Sword and Shield
Spends a feat on bastard sword proficiency.
Does 1d10+str damage per basic attack.
Has +2 ac.
Has +2 reflex.
Has -2 armor check penalty.

Two handed Sword
Has a feat unspent
Does 1d10+str damage per basic attack.
Has no armor check penalty.

That's the comparison. If you include weapon focus in your calculations, you get:

Sword and Shield
Spends a feat on bastard sword proficiency.
Spends a feat on weapon focus.
Does 1d10+str+1 damage per basic attack.
Has +2 ac.
Has +2 reflex.
Has -2 armor check penalty.

Two handed Sword
Spends a feat on weapon focus.
Has a feat unspent
Does 1d10+str+1 damage per basic attack.
Has no armor check penalty.

And you're still in the same position. The next logical step is to give out bastard sword proficiency to the two handed fighter (although its a little questionable whether the ability to improve absolutely everyone by giving them a bastard sword makes the bastard sword more balanced):

Sword and Shield
Spends a feat on bastard sword proficiency.
Spends a feat on weapon focus.
Does 1d10+str+1 damage per basic attack.
Has +2 ac.
Has +2 reflex.
Has -2 armor check penalty.

Two handed Sword
Spends a feat on bastard sword proficiency.
Spends a feat on weapon focus.
Does 1d10+str+1+1 damage per basic attack.
Has no armor check penalty.

So apparently the only final comparison is this. Which would you rather have? -2 armor check penalty but with +2 ac and +2 reflex? Or +1 damage, no ac or reflex boost, and no armor check penalty?

 

[The Little Raven]

Check out Pathfinder. Free download and you can see ideas that should have been 4E.

Pathfinder is missing the most important idea that 4th Edition actually went with: getting away from 3.X's wonky math.