Some time has passed since the 4th edition of D&D has been released. Many new players and those who played in that system earlier have got to know with that release. And many of them have written some reviews.
Reading mentioned reviews I come to conclusion that the 4th edition is simply bad. Many experienced players have said that changes of the rules have made a game less enjoyable. Also new players have commented that, indeed, there is a lot of action, but after some time sessions become boring.
So, how do you think - under the pressure of those negative opinions, if WoTC will release the 5th ed. of the game, in which they will return to the classic rules?
Best regards!
Hello everybody!
Some time has passed since the 4th edition of D&D has been released. Many new players and those who played in that system earlier have got to know with that release. And many of them have written some reviews.
Reading mentioned reviews I come to conclusion that the 4th edition is simply bad. Many experienced players have said that changes of the rules have made a game less enjoyable. Also new players have commented that, indeed, there is a lot of action, but after some time sessions become boring.
So, how do you think - under the pressure of those negative opinions, if WoTC will release the 5th ed. of the game, in which they will return to the classic rules?
Best regards!
Obvious troll is obvious.
Hello everybody!
Some time has passed since the 4th edition of D&D has been released. Many new players and those who played in that system earlier have got to know with that release. And many of them have written some reviews.
Reading mentioned reviews I come to conclusion that the 4th edition is simply bad. Many experienced players have said that changes of the rules have made a game less enjoyable. Also new players have commented that, indeed, there is a lot of action, but after some time sessions become boring.
So, how do you think - under the pressure of those negative opinions, if WoTC will release the 5th ed. of the game, in which they will return to the classic rules?
Best regards!
I've been playing 4e since it was released, and find it to be the most enjoyable D&D ever. Stop trying to start flame wars.
Hello everybody!
Some time has passed since the 4th edition of D&D has been released. Many new players and those who played in that system earlier have got to know with that release. And many of them have written some reviews.
Reading mentioned reviews I come to conclusion that the 4th edition is simply bad. Many experienced players have said that changes of the rules have made a game less enjoyable. Also new players have commented that, indeed, there is a lot of action, but after some time sessions become boring.
So, how do you think - under the pressure of those negative opinions, if WoTC will release the 5th ed. of the game, in which they will return to the classic rules?
Best regards!
I've been playing 4e since it was released, and find it to be the most enjoyable D&D ever. Stop trying to start flame wars.
this is a quick and simple answer to the problem you are all facing. you guys like the new characters but not all the new rules, you like the old rules and the classic characters. so why dont you all just use older rules and use what ever characters you want.
problem solved!
The simple answer to the op is no I don't think 4e is bad, in fact I am happier with it than many previous editions. I truly hope 5e follows the line set by this edition rather than try to go back to some mythological golden era of edition past.
Samrin - and did you ever played in earlier editions? If yes, how long? I have played in the 3rd edition since year 2004. After I've heard (in 2008/2009?) information about 4th edition I was considering of buying it. But after I've read many reviews on Amazon, I started to doubt. So no, it is not a flame war. I am just courius what players think about the latest ed.
5e will happen, but if it does, I certainly hope it does not devolve back into a previous edition.
bone_naga - you didn't say anything constructive, in particullary. But nevermind.
Samrin - and did you ever played in earlier editions? If yes, how long? I have played in the 3rd edition since year 2004. After I've heard (in 2008/2009?) information about 4th edition I was considering of buying it. But after I've read many reviews on Amazon, I started to doubt. So no, it is not a flame war. I am just courius what players think about the latest ed.
I'm afraid your op did come across as another flame wars thread, and you were responded to in the text book way most threads like that are dealt with. I'll try to explain why.
(long story short version)
Back in '08 when 4e was released there was a strong backlash from some die-hard 3.5 fans and much silliness and flaming ensued (H4ters vs 4vengers etc). Since than some of these people have grown to like this edition, others now play Pathfinder. Most people on these board now say "C'est la vie", after all we can't all like the same games, but many of us are still very aware of how quickly and easily the bad old days can be re-ignited.
As to how good/bad 4e really is, no one here can explain this to you in a few sentences, so I suggest you give 4e a try in an Encounters session at your FLGS or even give it a shot in your home game.
People are more likely to offer help and advice on these boards if you post with the benefit of experience.
bone_naga - you didn't say anything constructive, in particullary. But nevermind.
Samrin - and did you ever played in earlier editions? If yes, how long? I have played in the 3rd edition since year 2004. After I've heard (in 2008/2009?) information about 4th edition I was considering of buying it. But after I've read many reviews on Amazon, I started to doubt. So no, it is not a flame war. I am just courius what players think about the latest ed.
If instead of spouting some pithy and banal generalities that "fourth edition is bad" you were to actually state what about the reviews put you off, you might get a little more engagement.
Speaking as another 30 year veteran, I find fourth edition to have been the most fun I've had as a player and as a DM. The rules are put together well and cover what needs to be covered, no more.
bone_naga - you didn't say anything constructive, in particullary. But nevermind.
Samrin - and did you ever played in earlier editions? If yes, how long? I have played in the 3rd edition since year 2004. After I've heard (in 2008/2009?) information about 4th edition I was considering of buying it. But after I've read many reviews on Amazon, I started to doubt. So no, it is not a flame war. I am just courius what players think about the latest ed.
I've played every edition of D&D, plus many other systems. I played 3e from 2005ish till 4e came out, and it was a breath of fresh air for me. Most "reviews" on amazon are extremely misplaced and written grognards who have never played it.
Unfortunately, in my country the 4th edition still hasn't been released. So I need to get it from the USA - those three core-books maybe are not so expensive, but I'm used to esteem all earned money (that's why I always check the reviews).
So I was confused after reading them on the Amazon...But if you say that the latest edition isn't so bad, maybe I really should give it a try. Probably I had a bad luck and came across opponents' opinions on the shop (if someone is interested - www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Players-... ).
Tibis - it was only my conclusion which I got after reading another's opinions. It is not a critic of the 4th edition of D&D at all.
Anyway, thanks for your every answer!
Going from 2E to 3E and then from 3E to 4E caused radical changes to the structure of the game and also introduced OGL related changes (creating it in one case, and removing it from applicability to the latest version of the game in the other). Changes on the lesser scale of the transition from 1E to 2E have already been done in the course of releasing new 4E products and rules revisions.
My guess is that there will not be a new edition of D&D until the volume of needed and desirable changes that cannot be done within the current 4E scope becomes massive enough to justify the market turmoil of phasing out 4th edition and bringing in the next edtion -- and I think that point is still years away.
I guess the real question in regard to a new edition would be this -- What would Wizards want to accomplish with a new edition that they cannot accomplish through their current rules update process?
Going from 2E to 3E and then from 3E to 4E caused radical changes to the structure of the game and also introduced OGL related changes (creating it in one case, and removing it from applicability to the latest version of the game in the other). Changes on the lesser scale of the transition from 1E to 2E have already been done in the course of releasing new 4E products and rules revisions.
My guess is that there will not be a new edition of D&D until the volume of needed and desirable changes that cannot be done within the current 4E scope becomes massive enough to justify the market turmoil of phasing out 4th edition and bringing in the next edtion -- and I think that point is still years away.
They are hoping to revitalize 4E to get a few more years out of it. It is pretty bloated in some areas and anemic in others.
The one thing they could do is have a clean break from the old style 4E ruleset. That would shut all those pre-E grognards up. Of course they'd lose a whole slew of customers and have another divide. So what they should do is slowly change the rules up a little at a time and come up with some kind of fancy buzz word to go with it... something that sounds like you can't live without it... "Must have", "Core", no wait I have it "Essentials". Call it "Essentials" and hope no one notices that they are changing versions over time until its too late...
In all seriousness though. Mark my words 5E is right around the corner...
MarkAtkinson - thank you for your answer! To be honest - I haven't heard anything about the war between the followers and the opponents of the 4th ed. So after you explanation I understand the situation much better.
Unfortunately, in my country the 4th edition still hasn't been released. So I need to get it from the USA - those three core-books....
Believe it or not most people who live in a country that is not USA/Canada have problems getting WotC books. I live in the UK and we have a serious lack of stores that stock them and Amazon are very unreliable. Last year I discovered (thanks to a posters on these forums
)Book Depository. They offer free delivery to about 100 countries around the world and probably/possibly deliver to your country too.
I hope that helps you out.
Tibis - it was only my conclusion which I got after reading another's opinions. It is not a critic of the 4th edition of D&D at all.
As I said, let us know what about those opinions give you cause for concern. I'm sure that we can offer some counterpoints.
Essentials is a terrible, terrible step backwards.
I find Essentials to be quite awesome, thank you very much.
I agree.
I now think Essentials is how 3e should have been back in 2000, and maybe we could have avoided all that .5 nonsense.
The Fourth Edition is just as exciting and wonderful as any other edition of Dungeons and Dragons. Essentials furthermore are yet more fascinating and variegated stuff added on top and mixed in thoroughly with the Fourth Edition.
I look forward however to the time when there is also a Fifth Edition. I cannot get enough roleplaying goodness.
And I love Essentials. Members of said group might find it a step back towards what they disliked about 3.5e, but for me, it has everything I loved about 4e, and I don't feel it's a step into my upset territory. I'm very happy where 4e is right now.
But there is a split, and you should get a varied opinion. But if you like 3.5e, then you might prefer jumping into Essentials rather than starting with 3 books that are three years old now.
Believe it or not most people who live in a country that is not USA/Canada have problems getting WotC books. I live in the UK and we have a serious lack of stores that stock them and Amazon are very unreliable. Last year I discovered (thanks to a posters on these forums
Book Depository. They offer free delivery to about 100 countries around the world and probably/possibly deliver to your country too.
I hope that helps you out.
I too live in the UK. I managed to get the 3 Players Handbooks, 2 DMGs, and 3 Monster Manuals from my FLGS. They haven't had any of the essentials books though, nor have they had any of the older books back in.
To be honest, I occasionally wonder why slapping an edition number on something makes it ok to call it the same game.
Basic original D&D has nothing much in common with 4th edition aside from 6 stats and a name.
1st and 2nd are more or less similar, 3rd is sufficiently different to make calling it the same sometimes pointless, and 4th is as different from 3rd as it is from all the earlier editions.
It often comes down to what the hell game do you like, and can you stomache playing a game with used books. Because that's the deal eh, you can buy 4th today, maybe just maybe find some 3.5 on sale if you are lucky, but likely everything else will be old and used.
Most people play what they can find and most don't look for stuff on places like Amazon.
Don't count me as among those that think 4th is some sort of imaginary failure. I liked it enough to buy it and I am cheap at heart.
Currently I own 4th and I also own Alternity books and the 1st edition Warhammer FRP book.
I don't really care enough for a few other designs to own them. But I have played a lot of Rolemaster in my time as well as Paladium.
4th is both nicely detailed as well as simple in design. Essentials is just an excuse to sell product. If you actually ARE too stupid to play 4th and actually DID need Essentials to figure out this game, well you have my condolences on your pathetic IQ too.
I can't even begin to ponder what a 5th edition would look like.
I know I have some ideas I would offer.
But the thing is, this isn't 1970 any more, and I think that it's time that Wizards accepted that all the other game designers have already thought up all the viable methodologies for inventing imaginary paper people eh.
5th edition is not exactly going to be capable of reinventing the wheel so well that it will not look like they have ripped off some other publisher.
Myself, I'd drop down cash on D&D in a second if they simply revived the Alternity design and made it fantasy instead of scifi. Tried to do it myself, but it's a lot of work.
I prefer the whole control d20 with variable difficulty dice approach and 3 types of success design.
It's entirely easy to run.
bone_naga - you didn't say anything constructive, in particullary. But nevermind.
Well neither did you. I mean seriously, look back at your post. You said you read a few reviews and said you have decided it was "simply bad". First off, why are you basing your opinion off of those reviews (and I can point you to plenty of review that say 4e is good) rather than making your own decision? You're not really going to get much agreement on the 4e forums, especially when you don't even know the game. Two, what specifically about the system do you have a problem with? I'm assuming nothing since you haven't played the game, but if you can't articulate something that you find to be wrong with the system how do you expect anyone here to react? As to 5e, well WotC bases their business decisions (presumably) on sales figures, not on angry reviews from an outspoken minority.
EDIT: And if you really are completely ignorant of all of this then I do apologize for my initial reply but the lack of substance to your post made it sound like yet another troll thread.
MarkAtkinson - once again, thank you for your help. You are right - there is a free delivery to Poland.
Now I have to resolve any of doubts about purchasing it.Tibis - so I will hurry with my explanations.
I have read that in 4ed.:- classes and races have been limited - some races, that are recognized as classic for fantasy games, have been removed; also some classes have been removed (AFAIK - at least druids and bards) - I know that some new choices have been added, but you have to understand me - some of my players really liked to play with druid or bard and when I read information that those classes have been limited - it didn't seem to be very encouraging...
- system of skills - I've read it has been totally simplified. IMHO the system in the 3rd edition was quite good (there were sometimes, of course, problems of kind "which skill to use in current situation", but everything could be solved)
- apparently different classes on very high levels are too similar to each other (maybe I will quote some opinion: "4. It doesn't matter what you play, the characters end up the same. Your warrior class characters end up having the same armor class and damage potential as your arcane class characters. It's like they are all fighters who just do different types of damage. The classes are sort of like 1% and 2% milk--sure, the composition is slightly different, but they pretty much taste the same. BOOOOORRRRING!") - I really appreciate variety of different characters so that opinion make me feel slightly upset.
bone_naga - maybe I used a bad phrase, I should use "I got an expression that 4ed. is bad" - sorry, my fault.
Well, as I mentioned before I was hesitating to buy a set of core-books. But before buying I wanted to know if it is worth of spending money. As I couldn't find any of those in book-shops in my city I had to read some reviews on e-shops. If reviews were good - then I would bought it and make my own opinion, but after I've seen mainly bad opinions (and believe me - after the release there were much more negative opinions than good ones - at least at Amazon) - I felt doubts.
But as far as I can see - here are mostly positive voices about that release. Maybe I was unlucky and came across those opinions that time...
But I hope you will resolve any of my doubts listed above.
Also - anything has also bad side so I would be really thankful if you could list things you don't like in the last edition.
That review was probably written right when the game was released. Some classic classes -- bard, barbarian, and druid -- and races -- gnome and half-orc -- had not been updated to 4th. However, by the release of the Players Handbook 3, all of these classic classes have been updated to 4e.
- system of skills - I've read it has been totally simplified.
It has been focused on skills used for adventuring. Unlike 3e, which tried to be a world-simulator, 4e concentrates on the PCs as adventurers. The skills that are now gone -- Craft, Perform and Profession -- are now narrative. You don't need stats for these.
- apparently different classes on very high levels are too similar to each other
This is a function of the fact that they made presentation more formalized and regular. It used to be that classes were distinguished by mechanics. Spellcasters had Vancian spellcasting, fighters had specialized feats, rogues had Skill Tricks, etc. Now classes are differentiated by powers. They seem similar at first blush because they are all presented in identical format, but in play, all of the classes feel very different, in my opinion.
Some people lodge this criticism as a way to complain that spellcasters are not nearly as powerful as they used to be at higher levels (and not nearly as weak as wizards used to be at lower levels). The classes are all balanced-- in that they tend to be equally effective in a fight -- but that doesn't mean they are homogenized. Each class is different in its own way.
I hope this helped!
My suggestion would be to print one 5th edition PHB and DMG that explained the entirety of the game and then don't touch the rules - this would require getting them right the first time or not including areas that needed supplemental books to correct, ahem-DCs-ahem. Then put out a world book and MM every year as well as some adventures but spend the rest of the game cycle supporting web tools and have monthly user submitted "unofficial" content. Seems like the books aren't doing great if they switched gears for the Essential line and they are on their second Character Builder tool when the first one was the only web content that worked right.
I'd like to see a smoother game, that ran quickly and didn't have massive holes in the rules so I could focus on storytelling and roleplaying instead of condtion tracking and looking up rules and errata.
Removing the math problems that caused the rise of the feat taxes, setting a hard limit on what some features can do (Windrise Ports, etc), mending some classes so that they can function as intended again (Strength clerics, PHB3 psionic at-wills, etc). Throw in a proper leveling system for mounts so that they can be a larger part of the game would be nice, too.
First of all - thanks for your all answers!
MarkAtkinson - once again, thank you for your help. You are right - there is a free delivery to Poland.
Tibis - so I will hurry with my explanations.
- classes and races have been limited - some races, that are recognized as classic for fantasy games, have been removed; also some classes have been removed (AFAIK - at least druids and bards) - I know that some new choices have been added, but you have to understand me - some of my players really liked to play with druid or bard and when I read information that those classes have been limited - it didn't seem to be very encouraging...
It sounds like you were reading reviews of the Player's Handbook from two years ago from people determined to hate it.
When 4E launched, it had the "core four" classes and "core four races" that have been in every edition of D&D from Basic to 3.x. After that, they had to pick and choose what to include because you can't put everything in one book if you want it to have a price point that gamers won't balk at.
Since then, most of the classes and races from previous editions have been represented or have an analogue close enough to it to pass by changing the fluff.
Foe example, the Druid and the Bard were both released for 4E in Player's Handbook 2, along with Gnomes and Half Orcs.
- system of skills - I've read it has been totally simplified. IMHO the system in the 3rd edition was quite good (there were sometimes, of course, problems of kind "which skill to use in current situation", but everything could be solved)
Actually, the skill system in 3.x was one of my least favorite aspects of that edition. It forced you to make the choice between role playing and roll playing. You could have a well rounded character, at the cost of skills that you would actually use. Skills without a broad application are a trap for roleplayers. For example, I wanted my Halfling Rogue to be able to play the flute. Well enough to play for her supper and entertain her companions. The six skill points I burned into doing that could have been spent making her sneakier, or better able to climb walls, or a better swimmer. Instead, the flavor I wanted to give my character cost me precious resources for no tangible benefit.
By making any skill that does not have an adventuring application part of the narrative and removing those skills from the rules, your character sacrifices nothing in order to be a well rounded individual.
- apparently different classes on very high levels are too similar to each other (maybe I will quote some opinion: "4. It doesn't matter what you play, the characters end up the same. Your warrior class characters end up having the same armor class and damage potential as your arcane class characters. It's like they are all fighters who just do different types of damage. The classes are sort of like 1% and 2% milk--sure, the composition is slightly different, but they pretty much taste the same. BOOOOORRRRING!") - I really appreciate variety of different characters so that opinion make me feel slightly upset.
The other thing that 4E got right, and which these folks are complaining about, is that all characters are now able to function and contribute meaningfully at all levels of play. You don't suffer through the first few levels of being a Wizard in order to become a god at 8th level, and you don't go from being ht emost important member of the party for eight levels as a fighter before becoming your Wizards pack mule for the rest of the campaign.
Each character has a role. Characters of the same role will generally have the same range of damage output, regardless of class. This frees up party composition, and gets rid of "okay lets draw straws and see who gets stuck with being the Cleric." Each class still has their own unique mechanics and flavor.
Also - anything has also bad side so I would be really thankful if you could list things you don't like in the last edition.
I've already said too much about this. I've no desire to start an edition war.
- classes and races have been limited - some races, that are recognized as classic for fantasy games, have been removed; also some classes have been removed (AFAIK - at least druids and bards) - I know that some new choices have been added, but you have to understand me - some of my players really liked to play with druid or bard and when I read information that those classes have been limited - it didn't seem to be very encouraging...
As said before, this was true really only in PHB1 days. With PHB2, PHB3 and campaign world supplements giving additional race and class options, D&D 4E has a strong range of iconic and new options along those lines. Some iconic classes have been substantially reimagined compared to their earlier edition forebears, but that has usually been a positive thing.
- system of skills - I've read it has been totally simplified. IMHO the system in the 3rd edition was quite good (there were sometimes, of course, problems of kind "which skill to use in current situation", but everything could be solved)
The skill list is substantially simplified compared to 3E, yes. A number of skills were consolidated (eg Move Silently and Hide were merged to Stealth), and you no longer get points to spend on skills, instead getting a static boost to trained skills and character level driving automatic advancement. Additionally, a few skills were cut as being either of a narrative nature, unnecessary for an adventure, or being completely redundant.
I wasn't sure about the revised skill system myself, but I warmed to it very quickly.
- apparently different classes on very high levels are too similar to each other (maybe I will quote some opinion: "4. It doesn't matter what you play, the characters end up the same. Your warrior class characters end up having the same armor class and damage potential as your arcane class characters. It's like they are all fighters who just do different types of damage. The classes are sort of like 1% and 2% milk--sure, the composition is slightly different, but they pretty much taste the same. BOOOOORRRRING!") - I really appreciate variety of different characters so that opinion make me feel slightly upset.
As others have said, while the basic framework for many classes is similar they are very different beasts in play. Anyone who states that fighters play the same as paladins or wizards has, in my opinion, quite a tenuous understanding of the system. Even the homogeneity argument is getting less valid with Essentials versions of classes deviating quite substantially from the previous framework.
I think the Feat Tax collective is something that will be tried to be avoided, for every aspect of the game.
So, basically - do I need to have all core-books (PHB 1, 2, 3, DMG 1, 2, MM 1, 2, 3; as you told - some races have been added just in PHB 3, so maybe I need to have all those books)? In 3rd ed. only three books has been needed, so it's quite sad.
bone_naga - you meant that - www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx ? I think it's a great idea - nothing is better than trying by oneself! And it's a pity I haven't found it earlier...
A lot of thanks for your answers! I really appreciate your help!
So, basically - do I need to have all core-books (PHB 1, 2, 3, DMG 1, 2, MM 1, 2, 3; as you told - some races have been added just in PHB 3, so maybe I need to have all those books)? In 3rd ed. only three books has been needed, so it's quite sad.
bone_naga - you meant that - www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx ? I think it's a great idea - nothing is better than trying by oneself! And it's a pity I haven't found it earlier...
Just PHB, DMG and MM/Monster Vault should be quite enough, really. The rest just give you more.
A lot of thanks for your answers! I really appreciate your help!
So, basically - do I need to have all core-books (PHB 1, 2, 3, DMG 1, 2, MM 1, 2, 3; as you told - some races have been added just in PHB 3, so maybe I need to have all those books)? In 3rd ed. only three books has been needed, so it's quite sad.
bone_naga - you meant that - www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx ? I think it's a great idea - nothing is better than trying by oneself! And it's a pity I haven't found it earlier...
Yes that link is what I meant. It won't give you a lot of options but it shows you enough to give you a taste of the game so you can figure out if it's worth investing more in.
And no, you do not need all the PHBs, DMGs, and MMs. All you need is the first PHB, DMG, and the MM (or Monster Vault might actually be better since it updates some of the monsters to the MM3 mechanics which work better than the original stats). Each PHB has different classes, however, so you might want the others if they have something of particular interest to you. For example, if you wanted a Psion in 3e you needed the Psionics Handbook, in 4e you need PHB 3 instead. I do highly recommend the DMG 2 for the excellent DMing advice it provides but it is not a necessity.
At its core, the engine and premise upon which 4E was designed is good. Admittedly, there have been several flaws with implementation of said system but that is to be expected with such a marked difference between it and its predecessors (something which 3E also suffered from and which prompted the release of 3.5).
I personally happen to like 4E based upon the premise it was designed. The game is dynamic, interesting, and caters to both inexperienced and advanced play quite readily.
The main problem inherent in 4E, or more specifically - some players expectations of 4E is twofold.
1) It is such a marked departure from its roots that some players struggle to see it as DnD, and instead attribute it to being an abomination based solely on their emotional response to the system being called "Dungeons & Dragons" (in preference to another name).
2) 4E as a system, is primarily a gamist system, which borrows from (and adapts) various elements of online MMORPs (by design), in order to keep the game competitive within todays current gaming climate. 3.X on the other hand was primarily a simulationist engine, where every possible nuance was covered by a rule, and one which was perfectly suited to a markedly different gaming environment (during a time before MMOs became the dominant species within the gaming environment).
The backlash to 4E is perfectly logical given the expectations of 3.X simulationist player base. I just wish that these people would stop and understand that 3.X had become stagnant, and idea-starved towards the end of its production run and therefore had to change.
I know how unsatisfied I was with the overall product quality in the last 2~years of 3.X (there were individual exceptions such as Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Battle, but 90% was garbage - Tome of Magic Im looking at you), and even in the case of MoI, its execution was sub-par compared to previous titles (despite how innovative the idea itself was).
In many respects the evolution of gaming mirrors the evolution of species, with pnp gaming evolving from miniature wargaming, and with MMOs evolving from pnp games once the computer became sophisticated enough to support their existence.
Unfortunately for us, PnP games have always been an endangered past-time, and are once again on the verge of extinction - this time due to the increasing popularity (and visibility) of MMOs. It was therefore unavoidable that D&D would have to evolve, and become more like the MMO in order to survive given how great a paradigm shift the gaming environment has undergone since the introduction of such a successful (and competing) game species.
re: what books to buy if you want to give 4e a try
For the DM:
Rules Compendium. there has been a lot of errata to 4e rules over the years. It can be hard to keep track of. This is both a positive and a negative - on the one hand errata generally improves the game and makes it run more smoothly, and it keeps the game 'alive' in a sense - on the other it can be a bit of a hassle. For core game rules, you're far better off going here, rather then looking things up in the original PHB or DMG, just so you don't have to worry about errata as much. Plus it's relatively convenient and well laid out.
Monster Vault. Do not get MMI. Monster design in 4e has improved immensely over the last couple years, to the point that those who didn't like 4e when it was first released might find it worth giving the game another try with the same characters, same adventures, and just new monsters. Even those who hate 'essentials' on the whole still have embraced the improved monster designs. So yeah, don't get MMI, get Monster Vault instead. If you want more monsters, try MMIII, or even MMII is alright. Also, customizing your own monsters in 4e is very quick and easy, due to npcs & monsters not using the same mechanics as PCs.
choice of DMG / DMGII / DM Kit: there are ups and downs for all of these. If you're an experienced DM, you might not even need any of them, exactly. If you're new to DMing and 4e in general, I recommend the Kit, but DMGI and DMGII are still pretty good if you prefer hard cover books, and DMGII is my personal favorite. If you do use DMG I and II remember to check their 'updates' pages for erratta.
Setting Books: If you play in a published campaign, you'll obviously want those campaign books. the 4e campaign books are nice, but somewhat cursory - its designed to give you the tone and feel of the setting, a basic sense of the geography and history, and the basic stuff you need to play in the setting. Like most 4e books, they're designed to get you into the game as quickly as possible, which is nice in itself, but if you played older editions you may want something more in depth. If you prefer exhaustive & detailed fluff you can try searching for online fan groups of the various settings, as well as look for 2e and 3e setting products.
Treasure Books: Sadly, there's been a shift in magic items in 4e. Originally it was considered more of a player resource (it's the PC's who use items and need to know what they do), so items were put in player books, rather then have players need to rifle through DM books to know how their characters worked. More recently they've reversed that trend, and now items are generally in DM books in newer releases, so you'll need to take it into account. Item selection is thin, especially if you want to use the new rarity rules (I don't reccomend it), so you might want to pick up one or more of the Adventurer's Vaults. This isn't an immediate priority, there's enough items in the books your players will get that you won't have an immediate problem, but this is something you'll need to deal with if you run an extended campaign. As a bit of advice: even if you're using the new rarity rules, if a player really wants a particular item, especially if it's necessary for their character concept (say, an elemental sword for a character who wants to play an elemental warrior concept), find a way to get it to them.
Player Books. You'll also probably want to borrow books from your players that they're using for their characters even if you don't own them so you can familiarize yourself with thier abilities. You'll definitely want to print out the update / errata documents for any books your players are using, but you don't necessarily need to own them yourself.
For Players:
Rules Compendium: you want to use the compendium for skill & combat rules. Just ignore those entries in whatever PHB you end up with.
Setting Books: if your DM is running a published setting, you'll want to pick up the player's guide to that setting so you will be aware of any setting specific special rules or options, as well as have a sense of the history and tone of the world.
Race / Class books: Find a list of 4e races and classes online, or get a description of the roles (basically tank, damage, healer, & control), decide which you want to play, and post a question in the related forum here describing the kind of character you want to play and ask for race / class suggestions. Decide on what you want, and go buy the books those races & classes are in. Then download the update / errata documents for them, and use those books to make your character. There's a lot out there, but you don't need to buy PHBI or PHBII if you want to play a Shardmind Psion, and you don't need to buy PHBII or PHBIII if you want to play a tiefling warlord.
If you want more: if you want more options, look for power books for your character's power source, or check out the online dragon magazine. The online tools aren't in the best state at the moment, and dragon articles have been a bit anemic lately (although there are some arguable signs of improvement), so I don't exactly recommend an ongoing subscription right now, but signing up for a single month to download the archived Dragon issues will add a lot of options for most characters, and it will give you a chance to try out the new online character builder to decide if its right for you (I'm not a fan, but different tastes and all).
Note: Always check any options you want to try with your DM to make sure they fit the campaign. 4e is generally more open by default then previous editions, but it's still a good idea to do so.
General Notes:
Mechanics are generally more combat oriented in 4e then previous editions. If you want non-combat roleplaying, you're generally going to have to go out of your way to provide it. Combat rounds are shorter in 4e then 3e, but combats themselves involve more rounds and will be longer overall, especially while you're still getting to know the system.
There are a lot of conditions and abilities to track, and positioning is very important, making some sort of combat map pretty essential, whether you use tiles or a vynle mat or just graph paper. Initially this can be a hassle, but it can make for some dynamic, tactical combats once you're used to it.
4e is more teamwork oriented. Leader and Controller classes grant essential tactical advantages, Defenders are important for funneling damage away from vulnerable party members, and strikers are important for taking down tough enemies. All the classes work best when supporting each other, and some classes work better together then others. 4e parties work best when the Players consider each others' characters when making their own.
4e is not for everyone. 3.5 was a good game. 4e is also a good game, but it is a different good game, and as such it's only natural that some people prefer one over the other. Try not to get involved in 'edition wars'.
re: better 5e - New editions are just the way of things, there will be a 5e eventually, and some will like it better and some won't. I'm a bit jaded right now, as I'm not a huge fan of the current design philosophies - particularly the one that says "we have too many classes, so no new classes for Shadow" - so I'm hoping for a slightly different direction in 5e, but in general I'm pretty happy with 4e, and feel ambivilent about essentials products that seem to be looking back to previous editions for ideas. I'm hoping 5e goes back to looking forward instead.
This was probably the best description I've seen of 4e, and the best overview of what to buy for new players. Touchée.
4e is more teamwork oriented. Leader and Controller classes grant essential tactical advantages, Defenders are important for funneling damage away from vulnerable party members, and strikers are important for taking down tough enemies. All the classes work best when supporting each other, and some classes work better together then others. 4e parties work best when the Players consider each others' characters when making their own.
Just a small clarification for the OP (I'm pretty sure that this is what malisteen meant):
Some classes work better with certain other classes. For instance, an Artificer+Ranger tends to be a better team than a Artificer+Barbarian; simply due to the way how Artificers buff and how Rangers and Barbarians attack. However, a Warlord+Barbarian may work better than a Warlord+Ranger.
I would was a little worried that this might be taken as, "Some classes work poorly with all other classes", which is not the case.
Firstly, I will play with my friends in that quickstart rules and listen, what they think about the new edition of a system. If the liked that - I would buy required books.
And I would like to apologize if someone thought that topic would be another flame war. I just couldn't state proper what's on my mind - as you can see my English isn't so good.
Best regards!
I love 4th but I have found a lot of the critism to be valid and I respect their issues.
Unlike a lot of pro-essential lovers I can handle critism of something I like. Now where is my cape with the W, or E or the MM (Mike Mearls)?
I am not saying that the system itself is flawed (although it certainly has its rough spots), only that the Dev's underestimated the impact that such a huge change would have on the player-base. As a result, the engine provoked a huge knee-jerk reaction from those players unable (or unwilling) to accept such a major departure from the games legacy, thereby prompting the release of Essentials in an attempt to bridge the gap.
Had the Dev's adopted an Essentials-style model for martial classes while still maintaining the games complexity level (think Advanced Essentials), I believe that the reaction would have been far less severe.
They could have then introduced Daily Powers for martial classes as an optional mechanic in MP1 using Power Swap Feats or some other mechanic to keep them balanced.
As a result, I fully expect that when 5E finally is offered, it will be some kind of 4E/Essentials hybrid, combining the best features of both systems and introducing slightly new mechanics for some sub-systems.
If 5e looks like essentials im not buying it either.
Honestly if 4e looked like essentials at launch, i'd likely be playing something else right now. I got excited bout 4e cause i liked the idea fighters who could do cool things.
If 5e looks like essentials im not buying it either.
+1
Honestly if 4e looked like essentials at launch, i'd likely be playing something else right now. I got excited bout 4e cause i liked the idea fighters who could do cool things.
If 5e looks like essentials im not buying it either.
+1
+2
Honestly if 4e looked like essentials at launch, i'd likely be playing something else right now. I got excited bout 4e cause i liked the idea fighters who could do cool things.
If 5e looks like essentials im not buying it either.
+1
+2
+3, and you gain a bonus to truth equal to the enhancement bonus of this post.
Honestly if 4e looked like essentials at launch, i'd likely be playing something else right now. I got excited bout 4e cause i liked the idea fighters who could do cool things.
If 5e looks like essentials im not buying it either.
+1
+2
+3, and you gain a bonus to truth equal to the enhancement bonus of this post.
+4. It's surprising how lethargic I've felt about D&D since Essentials has come out.
If 5th is just a teecked version of either... not buying.
If it fixed things like powers using damage dice instead of x[w]s for spellcasters. You know give implements x[i]s or something.
There's no profit in photocopying character sheets and using your imagination.
5th will be a card game if WotC has their way.
There's no profit in photocopying character sheets and using your imagination.
That's true. If you can't copyright it and control the demand versus the supply, then there is no point. This is done with companies owning the "genetic code" of genetically altered food. They can sue anyone growing "their brand" of food (and have on several occasions). So basically if they can't make money off of it they will bury it...(like vitamins, really bad science using micro doses and saying it has no effect on health)...
Honestly if 4e looked like essentials at launch, i'd likely be playing something else right now. I got excited bout 4e cause i liked the idea fighters who could do cool things.
If 5e looks like essentials im not buying it either.
+1
+2
+3, and you gain a bonus to truth equal to the enhancement bonus of this post.
+4. It's surprising how lethargic I've felt about D&D since Essentials has come out.
+5. played 2E, quit, got into 4e, thought it was solid and fun. Then: Essentials and (much, much worse) Fortune Cards. Blaarg.
5th will be a card game if WotC has their way.
5th will look like this if Hasbro has their way!
blog.games.yahoo.com/blog/396-new-monopo...
A third App would be required to install custom adventures, and the computer would be pre-programmed with limited "valid" responses for any choice the players could make.......
Wouldn't it be just the best RPG you ever played!
In all seriousness though, this is a load of baloney. D&D has more chance of becoming a modular CCG/RPG amalgam than it does of becoming something like that.....And even then, were they to amalgamate CCG/RPG rules, the backlash would all but destroy the namebrand regardless of how the rules were designed.
OTOH, a precedent has already been set in Munchkin that shows that a non-D&D product can successfully incorporate CCG and RPG elements and still maintain popularity (although admittedly, Muchkin is also 1-part board game but the idea can still be adapted).
My only concern is that Fortune Cards become so successful, that the Dev's erroneously conclude that players would accept a CCG-Hybrid version of D&D (where players build a character deck, the DM builds an Encounter deck, and everyone submits cards to a Situation Modifier deck).
I personally have nothing against Fortune Cards, I think the product is an excellent way of introducing random situational modifiers to the game..... However, I am somewhat worried that the Dev's may be forced (by Hasbro) to take the concept to its logical (and somewhat extreme) conclusion.
OTOH, a precedent has already been set in Munchkin that shows that a non-D&D product can successfully incorporate CCG and RPG elements and still maintain popularity (although admittedly, Muchkin is also 1-part board game but the idea can still be adapted).
I don't think Munchkin qualifies as a CCG. I'm pretty sure it is just a CG. The game is sold in sets and not in random boosters. In that regard it is closer to Three Dragon Ante than MTG.
Another example is the poorly received Dragonlance 5th Age SAGA system by TSR which used a Fate-Deck instead of dice (although I personally liked it).
My point still stands that I sincerely hope that Wizards does not try to adapt the Fortune-Card model to the core game as that would create a far more extreme reaction than 3E received for abandoning Thac0 or 4E received for abandoning Vancian casting.
Abandoning Character Sheets (and-or dice) in favor of cards would create an almost visceral reaction within the D&D conmmunity, and one I think the brand name could not recover from.
OTOH, as stated previously, were they to create a different brand-name using said mechanics, it would favor much better, for the same reasons that 4E would have been much better received had it been branded MTG-RPG
In fact, were they to create a MTG-RPG which was a hybrid CCG, no-one would even batt an eyelid (as it would be almost expected). What would be better would be if said RPG was backwards compatible with MTG, in that the cards could be used in an MTG deck although that might limit the product somewhat.
Honestly if 4e looked like essentials at launch, i'd likely be playing something else right now. I got excited bout 4e cause i liked the idea fighters who could do cool things.
If 5e looks like essentials im not buying it either.
+1
+2
+3, and you gain a bonus to truth equal to the enhancement bonus of this post.
+4. It's surprising how lethargic I've felt about D&D since Essentials has come out.
+5. played 2E, quit, got into 4e, thought it was solid and fun. Then: Essentials and (much, much worse) Fortune Cards. Blaarg.
+6
Surprised no one made a Watson joke.
Honestly if 4e looked like essentials at launch, i'd likely be playing something else right now. I got excited bout 4e cause i liked the idea fighters who could do cool things.
If 5e looks like essentials im not buying it either.
+1
+2
+3, and you gain a bonus to truth equal to the enhancement bonus of this post.
+4. It's surprising how lethargic I've felt about D&D since Essentials has come out.
+5. played 2E, quit, got into 4e, thought it was solid and fun. Then: Essentials and (much, much worse) Fortune Cards. Blaarg.
+6
+7
D&DE classes can be a little bland because they're for new players, so classes do little to effect each other or change the battlefield, to make them a little more managable and easier to play in a group. But it should still be possible to have a range of complexity in classes and classes that do interesting things each round without every class having powers. I don't like fighters only being able to make basic attacks or choosing how much to power attack for, but just choosing which "spell" they want to cast seems to be forcing another class's feel onto fighters.
Simply put, not every class should appeal to everyone. There should be a range of how classes act and feel and play. While many people hate the Essentials fighter many other people love it and enjoy just being able to play without agonizing over which power to use each round or what makes the most tactical sense at this moment in combat. One game catering to different play styles.
I'm not a big fan of the over-reliance of powers in 4e. Earlier editions made use of paragraphs and similar text which could risk being confusing but was also much more space efficient. Even small, simple powers can be 7 lines of text. Looking at how the Character Builder presents powers from the PHB1 in the standard power format, they take-up much more space in that form than just paragraph form. It's become a crutch but also a space-hog. So much of player books is just devourered by the powers because of the standardized and overly-mechanical power formatting.
Look at how powers and classes were presented in 3e and earlier editons; it not only worked but was more space efficient, allowing for more content and options in a smaller space. The big revolution of 4e was hard math in the game, but that could have been overlaid over a very similar game to 3e. Much of the sweeping changes of 4e were changes for change's sake. And if the same attitude and percentage of needless change is applied when updating to 5e, I think the game will be unrecognizable and loose too much of its audience.
I think there's probably a way to balance D&DE and 4e and 3e. I dislike staight 4e for the cookie-cutter classes and over-reliance on standard powers, and D&DE really showed that it's possible to have both strict balance and variety in classes. I think 5e should probably take this a step further but also a step back, to a more class presentation of D&D classes and diversity in how classes are presented.
D&DE classes can be a little bland because they're for new players, so classes do little to effect each other or change the battlefield, to make them a little more managable and easier to play in a group. But it should still be possible to have a range of complexity in classes and classes that do interesting things each round without every class having powers. I don't like fighters only being able to make basic attacks or choosing how much to power attack for, but just choosing which "spell" they want to cast seems to be forcing another class's feel onto fighters.
Simply put, not every class should appeal to everyone. There should be a range of how classes act and feel and play. While many people hate the Essentials fighter many other people love it and enjoy just being able to play without agonizing over which power to use each round or what makes the most tactical sense at this moment in combat. One game catering to different play styles.
I'm not a big fan of the over-reliance of powers in 4e. Earlier editions made use of paragraphs and similar text which could risk being confusing but was also much more space efficient. Even small, simple powers can be 7 lines of text. Looking at how the Character Builder presents powers from the PHB1 in the standard power format, they take-up much more space in that form than just paragraph form. It's become a crutch but also a space-hog. So much of player books is just devourered by the powers because of the standardized and overly-mechanical power formatting.
Look at how powers and classes were presented in 3e and earlier editons; it not only worked but was more space efficient, allowing for more content and options in a smaller space. The big revolution of 4e was hard math in the game, but that could have been overlaid over a very similar game to 3e. Much of the sweeping changes of 4e were changes for change's sake. And if the same attitude and percentage of needless change is applied when updating to 5e, I think the game will be unrecognizable and loose too much of its audience.
Many of the changes that they made attracted me to D&D for the first time, including powers and the attractiveness of all the classes. For the first time I gave any thought at all to playing a Fighter when 4th ed came out. Simply put, most of the changes were for the better for a newer generation of gamers, and that is who they are going to have to target if they want the game to move forward.
Many of the changes that they made attracted me to D&D for the first time, including powers and the attractiveness of all the classes. For the first time I gave any thought at all to playing a Fighter when 4th ed came out. Simply put, most of the changes were for the better for a newer generation of gamers, and that is who they are going to have to target if they want the game to move forward.
Buuut do fighter powers need to be identical in format, presentation, and effect with wizard powers? Should stances be mechanically identical to "polymorph" powers and the like?
I'm confident game designers could make fighters fun and attractive and interesting without being reskinned wizards or playing like spellcasters.
Essentials does some of this, with at-will stances and no daily powers. But it was handicapped by poor 4e design, with at-will powers being > basic melee attacks. At-will powers should add options, not remove them and a straight "I hit it with my axe" strike should remain a valid and useful option.
5e should embrace that as a starting goal, so fighters can choose to make basic attacks or make alternate attacks that do less damage but apply effects or that do more damage but hit less often. Cleave might just do 1[w] to a target and Str to an adjacent target, instead of being a BMA plus.
Fighters and martial classes could be designed as more flexible and adaptable, without set powers, able to mix-and-match bonuses and conditions. They can choose a stance and pair it with a particular attack and weapon talent modified by class features and talent/feat selection.
Quite frankly, classes need to be different for people who want to play different things and who want their character to do different things.
Cookie-cutter classes are appealing to one segment of the audience, which might include a lot of new games, but if it alienates other gamers then the game still doesn't grow, it justs shifts niches. And it's a HUGE gamble to hope that you replace the audience you're losing with an equal number of new players. And new players are an unknown; WotC knows the dedicated fans buy all their books and have supported the game throughout three or four editions. Who knows if the new fans will stick around through an edition change?
Many of the changes that they made attracted me to D&D for the first time, including powers and the attractiveness of all the classes. For the first time I gave any thought at all to playing a Fighter when 4th ed came out. Simply put, most of the changes were for the better for a newer generation of gamers, and that is who they are going to have to target if they want the game to move forward.
Buuut do fighter powers need to be identical in format, presentation, and effect with wizard powers? Should stances be mechanically identical to "polymorph" powers and the like?
I'm confident game designers could make fighters fun and attractive and interesting without being reskinned wizards or playing like spellcasters.
Essentials does some of this, with at-will stances and no daily powers. But it was handicapped by poor 4e design, with at-will powers being > basic melee attacks. At-will powers should add options, not remove them and a straight "I hit it with my axe" strike should remain a valid and useful option.
5e should embrace that as a starting goal, so fighters can choose to make basic attacks or make alternate attacks that do less damage but apply effects or that do more damage but hit less often. Cleave might just do 1[w] to a target and Str to an adjacent target, instead of being a BMA plus.
Fighters and martial classes could be designed as more flexible and adaptable, without set powers, able to mix-and-match bonuses and conditions. They can choose a stance and pair it with a particular attack and weapon talent modified by class features and talent/feat selection.
Quite frankly, classes need to be different for people who want to play different things and who want their character to do different things.
Cookie-cutter classes are appealing to one segment of the audience, which might include a lot of new games, but if it alienates other gamers then the game still doesn't grow, it justs shifts niches. And it's a HUGE gamble to hope that you replace the audience you're losing with an equal number of new players. And new players are an unknown; WotC knows the dedicated fans buy all their books and have supported the game throughout three or four editions. Who knows if the new fans will stick around through an edition change?
Actually I like your idea and I am an anti-Essential crowd card carrying member.
If MBA's were a valid choice for martial characters and they got stances instead of at-will attack powers (or even better could choose them too), then it would work out better. You could make builds that were "hit it, hit it harder" and still at the same time make builds that were "hit it and push it, hit it and slide it, hit it and its buddy". Throw in daily powers that essentially give the character a +1 or more for the entire day as opposed to the static +1 that they get post-E. Then they could all use the same system and mechanics, but feel different... Then allow them to take the same encounter power as many times as they want or choose other encounter powers. This would allow for a template character that would Essentially be the Slayer, without restricting options for the rest of us.
Actually I like your idea and I am an anti-Essential crowd card carrying member.
If MBA's were a valid choice for martial characters and they got stances instead of at-will attack powers (or even better could choose them too), then it would work out better. You could make builds that were "hit it, hit it harder" and still at the same time make builds that were "hit it and push it, hit it and slide it, hit it and its buddy". Throw in daily powers that essentially give the character a +1 or more for the entire day as opposed to the static +1 that they get post-E. Then they could all use the same system and mechanics, but feel different... Then allow them to take the same encounter power as many times as they want or choose other encounter powers. This would allow for a template character that would Essentially be the Slayer, without restricting options for the rest of us.
Exactly.
Some classes can be designed to be simple but have options that can build a simple character or a more complex character, while other classes might be more complex with more moving parts.
Wizards should be a little more complex with more spells on the go and options that might overwhelm, or you might play a controller ranger that has limited options on their turn but has reactive powers (interrupts and reactions) that really make "exploits" feel different from spells.
So martial characters have more at-will powers than other classes or power sources, but they're situational or have to be triggered.
Actually I like your idea and I am an anti-Essential crowd card carrying member.
If MBA's were a valid choice for martial characters and they got stances instead of at-will attack powers (or even better could choose them too), then it would work out better. You could make builds that were "hit it, hit it harder" and still at the same time make builds that were "hit it and push it, hit it and slide it, hit it and its buddy". Throw in daily powers that essentially give the character a +1 or more for the entire day as opposed to the static +1 that they get post-E. Then they could all use the same system and mechanics, but feel different... Then allow them to take the same encounter power as many times as they want or choose other encounter powers. This would allow for a template character that would Essentially be the Slayer, without restricting options for the rest of us.
Exactly.
Some classes can be designed to be simple but have options that can build a simple character or a more complex character, while other classes might be more complex with more moving parts.
Wizards should be a little more complex with more spells on the go and options that might overwhelm, or you might play a controller ranger that has limited options on their turn but has reactive powers (interrupts and reactions) that really make "exploits" feel different from spells.
So martial characters have more at-will powers than other classes or power sources, but they're situational or have to be triggered.
I'd even add the option to get the same at-will power twice and get a bonus on its usage or a free rider or something...
Many of the changes that they made attracted me to D&D for the first time, including powers and the attractiveness of all the classes. For the first time I gave any thought at all to playing a Fighter when 4th ed came out. Simply put, most of the changes were for the better for a newer generation of gamers, and that is who they are going to have to target if they want the game to move forward.
Buuut do fighter powers need to be identical in format, presentation, and effect with wizard powers? Should stances be mechanically identical to "polymorph" powers and the like?
I'm confident game designers could make fighters fun and attractive and interesting without being reskinned wizards or playing like spellcasters.
Essentials does some of this, with at-will stances and no daily powers. But it was handicapped by poor 4e design, with at-will powers being > basic melee attacks. At-will powers should add options, not remove them and a straight "I hit it with my axe" strike should remain a valid and useful option.
5e should embrace that as a starting goal, so fighters can choose to make basic attacks or make alternate attacks that do less damage but apply effects or that do more damage but hit less often. Cleave might just do 1[w] to a target and Str to an adjacent target, instead of being a BMA plus.
Fighters and martial classes could be designed as more flexible and adaptable, without set powers, able to mix-and-match bonuses and conditions. They can choose a stance and pair it with a particular attack and weapon talent modified by class features and talent/feat selection.
Quite frankly, classes need to be different for people who want to play different things and who want their character to do different things.
Cookie-cutter classes are appealing to one segment of the audience, which might include a lot of new games, but if it alienates other gamers then the game still doesn't grow, it justs shifts niches. And it's a HUGE gamble to hope that you replace the audience you're losing with an equal number of new players. And new players are an unknown; WotC knows the dedicated fans buy all their books and have supported the game throughout three or four editions. Who knows if the new fans will stick around through an edition change?
See, I prefer the "mechanically similar with different features" type of class design. First, it makes it so you don't have to try and explain each class and it's subtleties form the ground up. For 4th edition, it meant I could tell all my players they all got x amount of powers, this is the way they work and away we go. Class features were different enough to make a difference in play, while each class had different powers to use.
For me, what made the fighter interesting was that it had options, like the spell-user had had options. "hit it with my axe" is boring, hit and move, hit and punish, hit and second hit while moving and punishing were all cool options. And yes, Essentials does this as well. But where's my nova for the day? I like the nova, I want the nova. I hesitate to say daily since the usage of dailies once per day is sort of an odd design (based of course around spell-slinging classes of yore), but still, where is the really strong, infrequently used KABOOM? Without that, Martial classes stray back to the boring end of the spectrum for me.
See, I prefer the "mechanically similar with different features" type of class design. First, it makes it so you don't have to try and explain each class and it's subtleties form the ground up. For 4th edition, it meant I could tell all my players they all got x amount of powers, this is the way they work and away we go.
That is the trade off, there is more of a learning curve if classes are different and people will need to actually read their classes rather than just read off their cards.Class features were different enough to make a difference in play, while each class had different powers to use.
Yeah... except they don't. In actual play, you're choice of powers has everything to do with how you play and class features far less.
Invokers of the same race and build who take different powers will play completely different based on power selection (ranged and area vs. close powers).
The other deciding factor is range vs. melee; rangers with identical powers but different weapons (two weapon and bow) will play completely different, but the two-weapon ranger will end-up very similar to a melee rogue.
Actual class features are almost negligable, and for many classes their features are once/encounter meaning it has as much weight as a single red card power.
A class needs to mean more, and what powers you pick should have less weight... for most classes."hit it with my axe" is boring, hit and move, hit and punish, hit and second hit while moving and punishing were all cool options.
"Hit it with my axe" is as boring as the game makes it. Really, it's not that different from hitting with an at-will. Both are pretty vanilla. All 4e did was add the vanilla of "hit it with my axe" to wizards where they just "hit it with my magic missile" being almost identical to a straight ranged basic attack.And yes, Essentials does this as well. But where's my nova for the day? I like the nova, I want the nova. I hesitate to say daily since the usage of dailies once per day is sort of an odd design (based of course around spell-slinging classes of yore), but still, where is the really strong, infrequently used KABOOM? Without that, Martial classes stray back to the boring end of the spectrum for me.
Ugh, I hate novas.
As a DM they're no fun because it trivilizes a fight you spent a while working on. As someone else at the table they're no fun because it means you'll have fewer interesting things to do and makes your turn seem anti-climactics. And they wrecks game balance, because designers have to weigh how the game flows for both cautious power use and novas, which is probably a big reason combat gets a little grindy in 4e, because everyone can nova so they set that as the mark for the duration of combat, so when you don't or cant thhhhings staaart toooo draaaaag.
As I've said, I like diversity. I like the idea of some classes having nova potential or the ability to run low in resources and I like some classes havinging more renewable resources that they can continually rely on.
See, I prefer the "mechanically similar with different features" type of class design. First, it makes it so you don't have to try and explain each class and it's subtleties form the ground up. For 4th edition, it meant I could tell all my players they all got x amount of powers, this is the way they work and away we go.
That is the trade off, there is more of a learning curve if classes are different and people will need to actually read their classes rather than just read off their cards.
Fair enough, but my players really were brand new, and the "sameness" of the mechanical functions of the classes helped them more than the different situations of the Essentials classes. If they had been required to read te whole class entry, I know at least two of the players just wouldn't be playing.
Class features were different enough to make a difference in play, while each class had different powers to use.
Yeah... except they don't. In actual play, you're choice of powers has everything to do with how you play and class features far less.
Invokers of the same race and build who take different powers will play completely different based on power selection (ranged and area vs. close powers).
The other deciding factor is range vs. melee; rangers with identical powers but different weapons (two weapon and bow) will play completely different, but the two-weapon ranger will end-up very similar to a melee rogue.
Actual class features are almost negligable, and for many classes their features are once/encounter meaning it has as much weight as a single red card power.
A class needs to mean more, and what powers you pick should have less weight... for most classes.
In play, with both race and build being equal, of course the play will be used on powers or weapons. The Twin Weapon Ranger and the Melee Rogue only play similar in that they are both in the face of the enemy. A rogue needs to have CA to be effective, and can do more damage to many targets overall, while the ranger would be more single focus because of it's quarry ability. And if the class and the race both have Encounter powers, that means that each encounter should reflect the class and race choice. If a character isn't burning their encounter powers right out of the gate, my personal thought is that they are doing something wrong (unless they are situational, which is ill-advised but possible). However, with different races and the same class build, effects can change. Also, the game can stay very static unless players narrate their powers. Really, this is what helps the game sing.
"hit it with my axe" is boring, hit and move, hit and punish, hit and second hit while moving and punishing were all cool options.
"Hit it with my axe" is as boring as the game makes it. Really, it's not that different from hitting with an at-will. Both are pretty vanilla. All 4e did was add the vanilla of "hit it with my axe" to wizards where they just "hit it with my magic missile" being almost identical to a straight ranged basic attack.
Sure, but the Magic Missile was boring. Now scorching burst? Show me the axe that does that at first level. Same with cleave or reaping strike. However, you must know that the person you are talking to prefers less subtlety and more flash. Subtle options are the death of interest for me.
And yes, Essentials does this as well. But where's my nova for the day? I like the nova, I want the nova. I hesitate to say daily since the usage of dailies once per day is sort of an odd design (based of course around spell-slinging classes of yore), but still, where is the really strong, infrequently used KABOOM? Without that, Martial classes stray back to the boring end of the spectrum for me.
Ugh, I hate novas.
As a DM they're no fun because it trivilizes a fight you spent a while working on. As someone else at the table they're no fun because it means you'll have fewer interesting things to do and makes your turn seem anti-climactics. And they wrecks game balance, because designers have to weigh how the game flows for both cautious power use and novas, which is probably a big reason combat gets a little grindy in 4e, because everyone can nova so they set that as the mark for the duration of combat, so when you don't or cant thhhhings staaart toooo draaaaag.
Actually, the only problem I have seen with novas is if a player has the tactical know-how of when to use the nova. Now, if that nova could, for example, be "recharged" via kills, a certain amount of fights, or what-have-you, I would be happy. I'm not a fan of the daily mechanic as it currently works. But I would also not play a class without the chance to nova.
As I've said, I like diversity. I like the idea of some classes having nova potential or the ability to run low in resources and I like some classes having more renewable resources that they can continually rely on.
Which is why the dailies should be rechargable. Really, I think the original 4th edition design catered more to my style, and Essentials caters to yours. I'd have to hope they support both of us, but I think they are going with Essentials more than pre-E. Pre-E reminds me more of my favored games: video games. It's what drew me in the first place. If they lose that, they lose my money. Which would make me sad.
I think that every edition of the game had something interesting to add the the DnD experience, however I do not think that any edition so far has been completely perfect, but each had its merits and faults. So, I am not advocating for the 5th edition a return to the old, but rather a re-evaluation of the old and the addition of new rules, new mechanics, new content.
The 5th Edition should have:
1) A system that makes the DM's life easy. In particular, monster should have all details about their abilties in the monster entry of the MM or wherever it's found (adventures, etc) so that monsters can be used ad hoc whenever needed. It was a real pain in 1st-2nd edition when a monster had "spell-like abilities" and you had to look in a dozen manuals just to find each ability. That became much worse in 3rd ed with feats!
That's a very good addition from the 4th edition.
2) Spellcasting:
Here I don't think we have reached yet a good system. What I would like to see is spellcasters with useful yet not unbalancing spells like in the old days BUT that can be properly upgraded.
For example, I never liked the fact that you had a million spells all doing the same thing, but just being slightly more powerful than each other (Monster summoning 1-9 anyone?), I rather have 1 good spell that scales properly through leveling and upgrades of some sort (so NO vancian system, but a new system where you gain few spells, but make them more and more powerful, giving you a more unique feel as a spellcaster).
Neither I like the feel of current spells, since they feel so....mundane
And rituals could use some proper re-make, I am never happy to spend money _and_ time just to cast a spell.
3) Bring back the "Epic" fell of the game!
In the old days you could really do crazy things at epic levels, create gigantic Golems to raze cities! Have your own army, have the aid of the Gods themselves!
And now? You get to epic and get an extra +1 somewhere, some slightly more powerful ability which really makes me go...meh
What we need obviously is not just a copy of the good old Epic manual 3rd ed, but a new beast that will make us smile from the potential (and obvious) power and destruction potential it brings.
4) Bring back the RPG feel of the game!!
I understand that the 4th edition was somehow made in the image of point-and-click MMOs, which in turn took a lot from DnD, but honestly, many people despise point-and click games! We also like to have downtime, create a business (with some kind of mini-game, yes like MMOs), we like to create something unique that doesn't just involve killing the elite Mob.
And yes, we like crafting :P (well some of us do)
5) Make melee combat a bit more simple.
Honstly, many times I felt a bit overwhelmed by:
"ok, within 2 squares of the paladin you have +2 morale to saves vs the spit of stinkin' goblins with rotten teeth, until the start of your turn have +1 ability bonus to movement made on a drunken monk that was unbathed for at least a week, which also has, until the end of a sleeping monkey' turn, a +3 to opportunity attacks made with sticks made from a burning tree raised in the land of Urgonon!"
I mean, guys, com'on! Just please make it for all end of round and let's be done with it! xD
6) Magic Items:
I never liked magical items in the game, they were always too essential (as they are still now).
I think the whole system should assume NO magic items, and then add them, but sparingly.
Also, they should grow as the character grows, with choosable abilities as they are upgraded (some sort of Development Tree for magic items, and possibly pets too) so to make them feel more unique.
Ok, that was my rant...hope to come soon with more...take care guys!