Very first thoughts after reading 4e PHB

[The Little Raven]

No true Scotsman would consider 4E to be D&D!

Good thing I'm just some dumb, American-born mick, eh?

 

[Keltheos]

Ummmmm, no.

It's the 4th Edition of D&D. That's a fact. Some people might not like the edition, preferring other editions for whatever reason, but saying that it's "not D&D" is just petulant and silly. It's a symptom of the "one true way" mentality.

If you say so. *shrugs* (I hope that didn't sound petulant)

 

[theNater]

As far as I've read, a person with a two-handed weapon can have magic bracers and do better damage, but a person with a one-handed weapon can only benefit from a magic shield or magic bracers, not both.

I'm surprised that this hasn't come up in conversation yet, but a comparison between the magic bracers and magic shields looks to me to be very heavily in favor of the shields.

With bracers you can get a small damage bonus to basic attacks(melee or ranged, not both) or resist a good amount of damage from one melee attack.

With a shield, you can toss a good amount of damage resist on you and one ally for an entire round, resist some damage from all ranged attacks, or spend a healing surge when critically hit.

I have yet to acquire any magical bracers or shields, but the shields seem more powerful to me.

 

[Regicide]

What's this whole 'It isn't/doesn't play/feel like D&D' complaint that keeps coming up over and over and over again?

Because it doesn't.

Does it play like a fun game? Then who cares if it's D&D?

No. It's called DnD, and it means there will be no more additions/corrections/expansion/whatever to 3.5DnD.

Why must it 'play like D&D' for it to be entertaining? If they're going to make it play the same why bother with a new edition?

Because there were problems with the previous edition that needed fixing. Oddly they did fix a lot of them. But then they made worse ones.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It's the 4th Edition of D&D. That's a fact. Some people might not like the edition, preferring other editions for whatever reason, but saying that it's "not D&D" is just petulant and silly. It's a symptom of the "one true way" mentality.

QFT. It's mind boggling the attitude that some of these old farts have, and most are likely younger than me. So, that attitude certainly has nothing to do with being old or being a fan of any of the first editions. I have credentials at least as long as anyone else out there and I'm flippin' excited about 4E. Just seeing how active this forum is excites me to no end. I mean, there are posts from today on the 5th page! Go back to the 3.5e rules forum and there are only 5 active (today) threads!

 

[Warbringer]

Good thing I'm just some dumb, American-born mick, eh?

as a mick-born mick, i assume the dumb adjective refers the American part of that hyphen

Anyway, 10 games in, about 60 hours in all.

So far, players like the system alot, we've already added some extra rituals based on the old PHB and Spell Comp to give the wizard a little more utility.

Monsters are my concern; a little 1 dimensional. Found myself throwing rituals in for variance and resorted to the extra standard actilon suggestion for Solos.

Is it DnD... mechanic no; flavor..uh huh. Ironically, as a player of 30 years (friggen hell)... feels more like DnD used to play before ADnD kit and 3e Prestige class explosion

 

[Kishin]

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

You mean a Fighter class that's still terrible and nothing done about CoDZilla? I'm a huge fan of Pathfinder, the setting, and regard some of the other class changes (The Rogue and Barbarian are _FANTASTIC_). But as far as balanced play goes.....I think 4E pretty much won that battle. I'm glad the two systems went in their own directions, and I think its honestly to have been expected. They said from the start that they had no intention of making 3.75, which Pathfinder basically is.

 

[Mister Doug]

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

To be honest, I'm a bit confused by those who love Pathfinder. I find the "fixes" in the first couple of beta releases to be less elegant than alternatives like the magic system in Arcana Unearthed; I thought that the system included bumps in powers and bonuses that seem to inflate existing problems in having (imho) excessive bonuses in 3.x that make it hard to create balanced scenarios unless all characters expressly avoid optimization or expressly embrace it.

Mostly, I see a game that if released as 4e seem as if gamers would have been in an uproar about because they had only a few years ago paid for a minor change in system and now would be asked to do the same again for a system that was just essentially a houseruled 4e.

My current view of Pathfinder is that it reads like a little too much like tacking on house rules to awesome-up existing 3.x, and very much like a game I would not play if I were happy with 3.x, but also a game I would not play if I were unhappy with 3.x.

Of course, this comes from someone who is likely to walk away from both editions for any games I run right now because I think all versions of D&D involve some baggage that make it hard to fit into the schedule and way I can game right now. I need something fast and easy to run and easy to get players into or out of games as their schedules fit, and D&D for several reasons endemic to the system (level system, I'm looking at you) makes it hard to run games without keeping a steady group of players on a steady schedule of games. This really excludes most of my buddies, so I don't see running D&D of any flavor any time in the near future. So I don't know how much my opinion matters.

 

[Mister Doug]

Why must it 'play like D&D' for it to be entertaining? If they're going to make it play the same why bother with a new edition?

More importantly to me is what does "play like D&D?" mean?

White Box OD&D played a lot like Holmes D&D, but differntly than White Box with the Greyhawk supplement, though that was not entirely like BECMI, which was combined Cyclopedia D&D which, if played with all features was a little different than each stage of the BECMI edition, which played differently from AD&D 1e, which played differently than 1e with Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, and the Survival Guides, which played differently than AD&D 2e, which was different than 2e with Kits, and totally different from 2e with the Powers and Options books, which played differently from 3e, which was similar to 3.5e with some key minor differences, but different from 3.5e with later supplements....

What is the monolithic D&D play experience in all of that? There are some continuities, but as many or more breaks in feel, style, balance, and direction from edition to edition from the many many more than 4 editions of D&D.

IME, the only continuity in feel I have had has come from players, their attitudes, and what they bring to the table.

 

[Gothmog]

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

I hadn't checked out the Pathfinder Alpha rules yet, though I intended to, so I downloaded them tonight and gave them a readthrough. All I can say is...

HOLY CRAP!!!!!!

I thought 3e was rough to DM- I can't imagine running Pathfinder. The existing problems in 3e have been magnified in that ruleset, and casters would dominate even moreso than they do now in 3e. There are some cool ideas- the barbarian's alternative rage powers and the new cleric domains are both nice, but they are handled inelegantly and require a LOT of bookkeeping on the part of the player or (god forbid) the DM if he makes an NPC classed with levels.

For the most part, it looks like Paizo took all the things my group and I disliked about 3e (implied setting, magic levels, feats out the wazoo, magic item reliance, etc), and dialed them up to 11 (X-TREME RULEZ D&D!!!). Pathfinder is definitely a system for people who love system mastery and optomizing characters for the most effectiveness. For folks who love 3e, I guess thats a strength, but for me its a huge turn-off. Again, I don't know how Pathfinder would play, and I'd be willing to play a few sessions to see if it plays like it reads, but if it does, Paizo has lost all interest from me.

Concerning D&D 4e...

After having read through and played a total of about 50 hours of 4e, I can say I'm in love with D&D again. I quit playing and running 3.x D&D about 4 years ago- it was bloated, cumbersome, had insanely powerful PCs, required inordinate amounts of prep time, and was too heavy into system-mastery to play for me and my group. 4e feels like playing 1e again to me- like I've found a childhood friend I haven't seen in 20 years. True, 4e uses the 3e base mechanics, and has new things like powers in there, but it has the tone and feel of 1e when I've played or run it, and I'm loving every minute of it! To me, my players, and a lot of people on here- 4e feels more like D&D from the 1e era, which is an incredibly good thing!