Very first thoughts after reading 4e PHB

[Vegepygmy]

It just feels that way.

That's really, really true...but probably not in the way you meant.

 

[hong]

That's really, really true...but probably not in the way you meant.

Yes, in the way I meant.

Other ways too, depending on whether you like thinking too hard about fantasy.

 

[billd91]

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?

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

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?

/whew, got that out of my system.

Ideally, I'd like my D&D to remind me of D&D. I can take some tweaking around of rules and mechanics, if they appeal to me (some changes in 4e do, some don't). That's not the only problem. There are plenty of other changes that raise the hackles that change this game from being D&D to being some other swords and sorcery game.

Unicorn go from being symbols of purest good to being unaligned.
Storm giants go from being a good giant to being evil.
Gnomes turn invisible when attacked.
Half elves get ability bonuses not at all related to their elven heritage.

There are lots of changes that seem to have no basis in making the game play better than previous edition. Are they designed to make a break with old D&D traditions and continuity? If so, did the designers intend to make the game not feel the same as, well, D&D?

 

[billd91]

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.

So what do you think is bumping up the power of the spellcasters? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[billd91]

As for Pathfinder... to each their own, but I agree with the others above that it does very little to fix the core problems of 3rd edition, namely that once you get past 10th level the math starts breaking down, you absolutely need magic items just to reasonably function/ if you're a non-caster, and the casters (batman-wizards and CoDzillas especially) horrendously overshadow the non-casters.

Regarding the necessity of magic items: I'd like to see you in a 4e game, with no magic items, trying to deal with level-appropriate challenges after 10th level. It looks to me that 4e 'deals' with that issue by making sure that the spell-casters require the same basic magic items as the fighter-types - things with increasing bonuses to hit.
In that sense, I guess it levels the playing field. But it's a mistake to say that dependence on magic items is a thing of the past. It's still built right in.

 

[billd91]

People reading 3rd Edition complained about the monk being overpowered, but people who played it knew that monks were anything but overpowered.

Reading something and executing it's intended purpose can provide very different results, as the difference between the Attack of the Clones script (nice script) and the movie (let's just say it wasn't the best movie) showed us.

You keep saying this like it's all the same people. There are plenty of people who read the monk and didn't think it was over-powered too.

And if you're trying to tell us that the supposedly good script from Clones matches the dialog from the actual film, then I have to wonder why it's considered a good script. The dialog in that film was bad and not just because the acting was wooden.

 

[VannATLC]

They have definately reflavoured Fey to be, well, Fey, not goody-goody-two-shoes.

Personally, I've never really referenced any of that as being DND centric, and I don't believe the greater market does, either.

Swords and Sorcery, to the non-intiated, IS DND.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Swords and Sorcery, to the non-intiated, IS DND.

That's what the DMG tells me.



Hmm, what did I think after I first read the DMG?

This may sound odd, but immediately after reading it I think I was most struck by the flavor of the races - from the beginning - and the elegance of the combat chapter - from the end.

I also really liked the new Paladin and Wizard, at least at first level.

I felt really positive and excited about the whole thing, my only regret was that there isn't yet a setting built out of these assumptions and rules.

The implied setting is nice, though.

 

[drachasor]

The classes, at least for my group, did play like a big gumbo, with none really distinguishing themself from the other. One woman played two characters last night (to insure all the "party roles" were filled"). She was a cleric and a paladin. Nobody noticed that half-way through the night she accidentally switched the sheets with her powers for each class. There wasn't enough difference between them.

How could no one notice that? Was the Paladin not marking his main target? Their powers are decently distinct, though there are some overlaps.

As a test, my son made "Power Cards" for the cleric, the rogue and the warrior today. He left out any flavor text, and the power source. Instead of 2(w), he put 2d6 or whatever fit. Mixed them together. We couldn't put them to rights except that he had put the names of the powers on the back.

Seems like a biased test for one. I am surprised some of them weren't easy to figure out. Naturally they would be some overlaps between 3 melee characters though. What do you expect?

As for you wizard who likes unorthodox tactics, have you looked at the section in the DMG on that? It provides a framework (that is easily expandable) for letting players be creative. Naturally some of the tricks will be different and more focused on the current environment, but that's good for the game, keeps things less stale.

I have to wonder about your group if they feel so constrained about "party roles" too. As others have said, such roles were always there. The Fighter/Paladin/etc is supposed to take more hits than the others. Now he has some abilities to help make sure that happens. A well-built rogue has always been a good damage dealer against a single target. Clerics always healed and buffed everyone else. The wizard was excellent at going to a horde of small guys at once. (Naturally I am focusing on the basic core of the last two classes, as they could get very broken in 3E). In what way to they feel constrained? The game even lets each class play a bit with the roles of other classes, and multi-classing allows this too. To be wholly honest, I wonder how good their sense of teamwork is if this idea constrains them. Can you elaborate on this more?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Read the books, played the game... I am not wild about 4E, though may play one-shots when I need time to work on my 3E campaign.

The classes, at least for my group, did play like a big gumbo, with none really distinguishing themself from the other. One woman played two characters last night (to insure all the "party roles" were filled"). She was a cleric and a paladin. Nobody noticed that half-way through the night she accidentally switched the sheets with her powers for each class. There wasn't enough difference between them. As a test, my son made "Power Cards" for the cleric, the rogue and the warrior today. He left out any flavor text, and the power source. Instead of 2(w), he put 2d6 or whatever fit. Mixed them together. We couldn't put them to rights except that he had put the names of the powers on the back.

Well, if you played a Cleric and a Wizard in parallel, and accidentally switched their spell list, how different would they play?

If she had played a Cleric focusing on the Clerics ranged attacks, the difference would have been a lot stronger, because you'd ask yourself why the Paladin is not in melee or constantly subject to opportunity attacks.