Wired Reviews 4e

Wulf Ratbane said:
Dropping another quarter into Gauntlet.

Still doesn't work.

There's a limit to how much healing a body can take in 4E.

Your analogy is closer to pre 4E with each quarter being equivalent to the HEAL spell.

Honestly, if you had said "It plays like Disgaea/La Pucelle Tactics/FFT" I would've actually agreed with you.

Seriously, everyone keeps making this analogy yet as others have pointed out, nobody can actually name the style of game it resembles.

4E is the WORST version of D&D to attempt to translate to real-time RPGs like WoW.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

arcady said:
Which edition of first edition did you play?

The one that somehow, in some way, managed to provide a game with tons of different rules without having the rules become greater than the game.

The one that allowed DMs to enjoy and bask in the wonder of their creations without engaging in: (a) an arms races with "magic can break any adventure" parties, and (b) an average of 18.23 hours of prep time per adventure level. Squared.

In short, the version of 1st Edition that I played felt like a friggin' game.

4E feels like a game.

They had me at hello.

Wis
 

Mourn said:
Having trouble reading properly, are we?

Mourn, you should know by now that this is the kind of snark that starts pushing a thread down the road to flames and closure. Knock it off.
 

arcady said:
Plus, 4E has no:

assassin

3E didn't have one, either, except as a Prestige Class in the DMG.

.5 orc, druid, illusionist, monk, bard, magic-user familiar, or ranger animal companion

All of this will likely appear in the PHB 2.


Since when has the Player's Handbook ever had psionics? Did the 3.5 PHB have psionics? Did the 3E PHB have psionics? Did the AD&D PHB have psionics? This is a bogus complaint. Just as in every prior iteration of D&D, psionics will appear in a later supplement.

magic-user (4E has sorcerer named Wizard)

As others have pointed out, does the Wizard not actually use magic? He also memorizes spells from a spellbook.


Statted out as a player race in the appendix in the Monster Manual. Not exactly news, here. We've known this for months, now.

No wandering Harlot table.

The one and only valid complaint in your entire post.
 

fiddlerjones said:
4E, as I see it, was designed to make the game fun again without tomes of rules getting in the way. I have my issues with it, including the lack of druids, assassins, charm person, summon spells, etc. But when you say that 4E lacks those qualities, you're really saying that it doesn't have them YET. You can always a) houserule them in or b) wait for supplements that will inevitably introduce them.

One of the main reasons I'm avoiding 4th Edition like the plague is that it looks to be the "we'll nickel and dime you" edition. Unlike 3rd Edition, core classes and races have been relegated to additional PHBs, while core monsters such as frost giants required the purchasing of additional Monster Manuals.

I could play a 3rd edition game with 3 core books and not feel like I was playing an incomplete game. 4th edition, to my mind, is incomplete with 3 core books.
 

cperkins said:
One of the main reasons I'm avoiding 4th Edition like the plague is that it looks to be the "we'll nickel and dime you" edition. Unlike 3rd Edition, core classes and races have been relegated to additional PHBs, while core monsters such as frost giants required the purchasing of additional Monster Manuals.
Out of curiosity, how many 3e or 3.5 books do you own? Just a quick look at my own shelf shows more than 20 3.5 books alone.
 

arcady said:
Which edition of first edition did you play?

When I look at my old several hundred page DMG and Player's handbooks with no skills or feats or paths, purely random generation, 36 levels, and 9 alignments, the only thing I see in common in random dungeon generation.

Plus, 4E has no:

.5 orc, druid, assassin, illusionist, gnome, monk, bard, psionics, magic-user (4E has sorcerer named Wizard), magic-user familiar, or ranger animal companion.

And, worst of all...


No wandering Harlot table.

Wandering harlot tables aside, for me it's not a this edition = 1st edition.

It's that this edition took the advances to the game 3e made, and polished them off so that the game as a whole plays a lot more like the D&D I knew in the past.

It's the 3e idea of having a way to customize your character and do things outside of specific character powers, with the earlier idea of not getting bogged down in the details.

Like skills, we have the 3e improvement (that if a character CAN do something he/she should be able to improve at doing it, and it should work in a uniform way that won't suprise you each time) without worrying too much about every incarnation/bonus penalty of the ability. It allows to the DM to be more "fluid" in running a game (something I feel earlier editions supported) while at the same time knowing he can fall back on a robust system that supports his decisions.

Green Knight said:
Just as in every prior iteration of D&D, psionics will appear in a later supplement.

To be fair, my AD&D 1E DMG DID have psionics... The game just didn't get a specific Psionics class until 2e.

cperkins said:
One of the main reasons I'm avoiding 4th Edition like the plague is that it looks to be the "we'll nickel and dime you" edition. Unlike 3rd Edition, core classes and races have been relegated to additional PHBs, while core monsters such as frost giants required the purchasing of additional Monster Manuals.

I could play a 3rd edition game with 3 core books and not feel like I was playing an incomplete game. 4th edition, to my mind, is incomplete with 3 core books.

What makes a monster "core?"

Is it simply because they've just always been in the first monster manual?

The 4e monster manual offers plenty of monsters and the 4e DMG shows you how to build ones YOU think of. A group of players/DM can sit down and play all sorts of adventures and games.

How is that not complete?

If it didn't offer ANY monsters... or offered the monsters without powers that you had to buy later... then yeah maybe... But as it stands? The game can be played right out of the Box (well if you bought the boxed gift set.)

Being different doesn't equate to being incomplete.
 

arcady said:
Open your 1E book and look up the name of the guy with spells per day and a familiar.

Trick question - not all "magic-users" ever got a familiar. Only if the DM was generous enough to bless you with that spell. :)

I really don't call 4E wizards "Vancian", for sure, but the daily spells mean that traces of it are still there.

Gnome? Not in my PHB. It's a monster in the MM, sure, but it's not in the PHB as a PC race.

I'm getting really curious, now. What's so unusable, mechanically, about the Gnome entry from the 4E MM? I keep hearing people say, "It's unusable" but yet people like Mearls and Noonan say, "yes, you can." Is it the lack of feats? Is it that conditional invisibility thing? What else is unusable about it, other than, "it's not in the PHB"?


Back to the point made by Wisdom Penalty.

Ari Marmell first codified this for me, and in my playtests I'd seen it myself but didn't put a solid finger to it before then; however, there are a number of things that are very "retro" or "retro reminiscent" about 4e for me. People are missing the forest because of the trees, figuratively.

  • classes play as strong of a role in 4e as they do in pre-3e editions. This was lost in 3e, and reclaimed in 4e, through the changes to multiclassing and through the paragon paths.
  • AD&D had a unit of measurement called "the turn", which was a 10 minute unit of time in which searches, binding wounds, cleaning up, etc. took place. All combat took a turn, and a turn was a good way to slkow down the pace of the adventuring day. This was lost in 3e, and more in 3.5, as spell durations listed in rounds and minutes encouraged (almost pushed) parties to rush dungeons at breakneck paces. 4e practically mandates the "short rest", as your encounter powers don't come back without them. It may not be the 10 minute turn, but it's a good attempt at curtailing the 15 minute adventuring day.
  • XP is assigned per monster, as it was in earlier D&Ds, rather than by a nebulous encounter level and challenge rating system.
  • Monsters have returned to their roots with the new stat blocks, listing the most important info, and concatenating the amount of info a DM must know about a complex monster. No longer is an advanced Dragon's stat block over a page in length; as in the old days, monsters are back to AC, attacks, to hit, damage, and one or two special abilities (or four or five for those really advanced beasties.)
  • Just as importantly, exception-based monster abilities have returned. A monster might have five times the hit points of a normal member of its species because it needs them, not because it had a high con bonus which bumps its fort save, skill checks, poison save DC, and number of rages per day. A monster might be able to breathe its breath weapon immediately upon losing half its hit points, because that would be fun to see, not watching gamers hem and haw until the DM came up with a feat to let it do that, just so the half-dragon players could argue about taking it, too.
  • Treasure tables are back, in a manner of speaking. only this time they're broken down into much more understandable units, for the DM to track.

Add to these (and these are just ones I've been thinking about from the forums; more to come once I get to peruse the books in detail) the mystique of magic iterms returning; admittedly, this renaissance of magic was started with the Magic Item Compendium in 3.5, a book I heavily recommend to any 3e fan, but it's been continued. The stage is set for any number of specially powered, unique items that don't depend on its numebr of plusses to note its importance. Add in the changes to weapons (according to Ari) that are reminiscent of the old Basic/Expert/Masters D&D.

There's a lot that hearkens back to older D&D, while replacing it with what the designers think are good solid changes to the parts of older D&D that didn't work (such as the dependency on clerics, the lack of unique and interesting powers for non-spellcasters, random hit points leading to parties too disparate to adventure together, Base attack Bonuses and save DCs that led to the same thing, etc.) Are those changes for the better? Only play will show the truth of the matter.
 

Henry said:
Ari Marmell first codified this for me, and in my playtests I'd seen it myself but didn't put a solid finger to it before then; however, there are a number of things that are very "retro" or "retro reminiscent" about 4e for me. People are missing the forest because of the trees, figuratively.

This.

Also, I think it's a bit fallacious to critique an new edition based on the perceived pedigree of a prior edition, particularly 1E. After all, one could make the same critique of 1E based on OD&D. And then, as usual, only Diaglo wins. And his hat of d02 knows no limit. Or so I've been told.

And furthermore, Amazon should be destroyed.
 

I like 4e. We had fun playing it last night and several previous gaming sessions. It has sold more wood than any previous edition. Cudo's.
 

Remove ads

Top