Does ANYONE besides me play 4e?
- Thread starter Christopher Robin
- Start date
Huh, missed this thread when it was posted.
Anyhow, as mentioned in the Game Talk forum, I happen to be in a 4E game, along with Trunkyboy.
So far, I'm pretty neutral in regards to the system, but we've only had two sessions, and neither was particularly combat heavy, and to be honest, the system is primarily designed around combat encounters.
Unlike those in the afformentioned hate thread, I don't actually think this is a bad thing, however. The system is designed to streamline combat so it moves fast, while the non-combat aspect is much more loose and thus goes at a more leisurely, free pace.
Because non-combat related things aren't so dependant on rolls, you can focus on roleplaying that isn't defined by the "rollplaying", to steal Geryon's term, while still having some rolling to fall back on for things relating to skills and certain talents and you take your time to do things with everyone able to chip in with an action at any given moment. It's very free.
When combat time starts, however, and you find yourself in the predetermined order from initiative, you're kinda limited to waiting for players and NPCs to do their thing before you can do yours. Each round is supposed to take a span of 6 seconds, after all, so it's not like you can do so many things at once. By streamlining just this aspect so things move fast from one action to another, combat transitions more smoothly.
Of course, this is the theory behind the change, and so far I've found that combat takes longer than 3.5E, though a good part of this is due to all the players and the DM being unfamiliar with the system so far. General opinion of people I've talked to about the system tend to agree that 4E combat starts off slow compared to 3.5E, but once you get used to it, it transitions much more smoothly. It remains something to be seen on my side once we actually get into more combat heavy scenes in the game I'm in.
Still, there -are- things I don't quite like or agree with change-wise from 3.5E.
While I do like the idea of balancing classes (3.5E effective 'fix' of fighters, monks and paladins by replacing them with warblade, swordsage, and crusader is kinda "meh" even if I do like the replacement classes), and I am happy that they are trying to balance things so no class outshines another at any particular level, I don't necessarily enjoy how they went about it.
It just feels to me that at many levels, a lot of classes have abilities that are pretty much interchangeable except in what the main stat is, and the 'fluff' for it. That's just...boring.
I -like- the versatility of 3.5E, despite the imbalance in it. Still, resolving things by giving everyone roughly the same abilities is just boring, even if it does resolve/improve class balance and combat time. No class really shines at anything besides a defined role, possibly.
The alignment thing also just seemed like a strange cut to have made. I honestly didn't see any reason to cut out some of the alignments. Okay, I can sort of undestand how they could be folded into the general Good/Evil alignments, but it still seemed a strange decision since it doesn't really simplify anything to do so. It's not a bad change, per se, just strange and feels awkward to those used to the previous editions version, and given how screwy alignment already was -there-, making things weirder just never struck me as a smart decision. On the plus side, they did lift restrictions on class alignments, which was always really annoying.
I'm also not a big fan of the general organization/presentation of the Player's Handbook. Some things I do like how they were organized, the class section in particular is pretty good (mostly). For the most part though, some of the information requires a lot of jumping around that you really shouldn't be forced to do, and details are really lacking in certain areas. I wasn't a fan of the whole [W] weapon damage thing appearing all over the class section and no real clarification on that appearing until the weapon section. Likewise, while I do think the freedom present for non-combat encounter is a good thing, the lack of blurb/fluff on that is just -sad-, there's no other way to put it.
D&D historically has -some- world defining fluff, but the PHB/DM/MM are all really lacking in these. Hell, monsters are just fat blocks of stats. It's very -boring-.
When you have an imaginative DM to play around with these things, you're fine, but not even having something for the more casual players (which is what the system generally is trying to attract in the first place), is a big failing.
I -do- agree with people that say it's not D&D, though not because it's different, but because it lacks that rich pre-existing history/fluff that -makes- a D&D system a D&D system.
However, given this, I think people should stop bitching about it in terms of how it's not D&D, but try to analyze it as a standalone system before deciding it's such a horrid thing that would leave Gygax rolling in his grave.
Looking at it from this perspective, without really comparing it to previous editions, I don't think it's a bad system so far, nor do I particularly think it's really a tabletop MMO simply because it tries to create a better defined game balance. It actually does look like a fun tabletop game, with lots of options for combat, although it's a game better enjoyed by those who can play it in the real world rather than online.
In terms of availability of free virtual tabletops, my gaming group hasn't found one we were satisfied with, and are currently trying to play without one.
Unfortunately, whereas 3.5E is a game that plays well without one but has the experience enhanced by having one, 4E is a game that plays well with one, but has the experience -dulled- by not having one.
Still, the claim that you need miniatures to enjoy it and that WoTC is trying to force you to buy them is just stupid. It's extremely easy to make a grid map with a pencil, enough paper, and a straight-edge, and then use coins or cardboard cut-outs or -anything- as tokens to represent players and NPCs. It's only in the online aspect, where you want a real-time grid with ease of modification by all players and DM where it can (and currently does) fail.
I'd -kill- for a good virtual tabletop that was free and our DM approved of.
Anyhow, as mentioned in the Game Talk forum, I happen to be in a 4E game, along with Trunkyboy.
So far, I'm pretty neutral in regards to the system, but we've only had two sessions, and neither was particularly combat heavy, and to be honest, the system is primarily designed around combat encounters.
Unlike those in the afformentioned hate thread, I don't actually think this is a bad thing, however. The system is designed to streamline combat so it moves fast, while the non-combat aspect is much more loose and thus goes at a more leisurely, free pace.
Because non-combat related things aren't so dependant on rolls, you can focus on roleplaying that isn't defined by the "rollplaying", to steal Geryon's term, while still having some rolling to fall back on for things relating to skills and certain talents and you take your time to do things with everyone able to chip in with an action at any given moment. It's very free.
When combat time starts, however, and you find yourself in the predetermined order from initiative, you're kinda limited to waiting for players and NPCs to do their thing before you can do yours. Each round is supposed to take a span of 6 seconds, after all, so it's not like you can do so many things at once. By streamlining just this aspect so things move fast from one action to another, combat transitions more smoothly.
Of course, this is the theory behind the change, and so far I've found that combat takes longer than 3.5E, though a good part of this is due to all the players and the DM being unfamiliar with the system so far. General opinion of people I've talked to about the system tend to agree that 4E combat starts off slow compared to 3.5E, but once you get used to it, it transitions much more smoothly. It remains something to be seen on my side once we actually get into more combat heavy scenes in the game I'm in.
Still, there -are- things I don't quite like or agree with change-wise from 3.5E.
While I do like the idea of balancing classes (3.5E effective 'fix' of fighters, monks and paladins by replacing them with warblade, swordsage, and crusader is kinda "meh" even if I do like the replacement classes), and I am happy that they are trying to balance things so no class outshines another at any particular level, I don't necessarily enjoy how they went about it.
It just feels to me that at many levels, a lot of classes have abilities that are pretty much interchangeable except in what the main stat is, and the 'fluff' for it. That's just...boring.
I -like- the versatility of 3.5E, despite the imbalance in it. Still, resolving things by giving everyone roughly the same abilities is just boring, even if it does resolve/improve class balance and combat time. No class really shines at anything besides a defined role, possibly.
The alignment thing also just seemed like a strange cut to have made. I honestly didn't see any reason to cut out some of the alignments. Okay, I can sort of undestand how they could be folded into the general Good/Evil alignments, but it still seemed a strange decision since it doesn't really simplify anything to do so. It's not a bad change, per se, just strange and feels awkward to those used to the previous editions version, and given how screwy alignment already was -there-, making things weirder just never struck me as a smart decision. On the plus side, they did lift restrictions on class alignments, which was always really annoying.
I'm also not a big fan of the general organization/presentation of the Player's Handbook. Some things I do like how they were organized, the class section in particular is pretty good (mostly). For the most part though, some of the information requires a lot of jumping around that you really shouldn't be forced to do, and details are really lacking in certain areas. I wasn't a fan of the whole [W] weapon damage thing appearing all over the class section and no real clarification on that appearing until the weapon section. Likewise, while I do think the freedom present for non-combat encounter is a good thing, the lack of blurb/fluff on that is just -sad-, there's no other way to put it.
D&D historically has -some- world defining fluff, but the PHB/DM/MM are all really lacking in these. Hell, monsters are just fat blocks of stats. It's very -boring-.
When you have an imaginative DM to play around with these things, you're fine, but not even having something for the more casual players (which is what the system generally is trying to attract in the first place), is a big failing.
I -do- agree with people that say it's not D&D, though not because it's different, but because it lacks that rich pre-existing history/fluff that -makes- a D&D system a D&D system.
However, given this, I think people should stop bitching about it in terms of how it's not D&D, but try to analyze it as a standalone system before deciding it's such a horrid thing that would leave Gygax rolling in his grave.
Looking at it from this perspective, without really comparing it to previous editions, I don't think it's a bad system so far, nor do I particularly think it's really a tabletop MMO simply because it tries to create a better defined game balance. It actually does look like a fun tabletop game, with lots of options for combat, although it's a game better enjoyed by those who can play it in the real world rather than online.
In terms of availability of free virtual tabletops, my gaming group hasn't found one we were satisfied with, and are currently trying to play without one.
Unfortunately, whereas 3.5E is a game that plays well without one but has the experience enhanced by having one, 4E is a game that plays well with one, but has the experience -dulled- by not having one.
Still, the claim that you need miniatures to enjoy it and that WoTC is trying to force you to buy them is just stupid. It's extremely easy to make a grid map with a pencil, enough paper, and a straight-edge, and then use coins or cardboard cut-outs or -anything- as tokens to represent players and NPCs. It's only in the online aspect, where you want a real-time grid with ease of modification by all players and DM where it can (and currently does) fail.
I'd -kill- for a good virtual tabletop that was free and our DM approved of.
I only just found these discussions on 4th edition.
Personally, I won't be touching 4th. Why? Because they completely destroyed my favorite base class - the wizard. The wizard is supposed to be (in my opinion at least) the most flexible class with effects. Now it's basically just a straight up nuker.
My favorite memory is quietly surrounding a higher level warrior (I think it was a blackguard) that was going to kill us with a wall of force so we could casually walk by him. You can't do that in 4th edition.
I might have been able to live with the other changes they made if they didn't do that. Sorry if I diverged from the topic at hand, but I felt I should explain.
Personally, I won't be touching 4th. Why? Because they completely destroyed my favorite base class - the wizard. The wizard is supposed to be (in my opinion at least) the most flexible class with effects. Now it's basically just a straight up nuker.
My favorite memory is quietly surrounding a higher level warrior (I think it was a blackguard) that was going to kill us with a wall of force so we could casually walk by him. You can't do that in 4th edition.
I might have been able to live with the other changes they made if they didn't do that. Sorry if I diverged from the topic at hand, but I felt I should explain.
I've played some low level 4th edition DnD at this point. Frankly, given my past DMs I'm sort of used to 4e combat. Lots of soft targets with one or two heavies.
I think they where trying to be a little bit TOO much like an MMORPG, but I'm adapting to the system.
My DM is planing to run a long-playing 4e campaign soon. He's promised us that leveling will be really fast at first to get us out of the dull low levels before we go crazy.
I think they where trying to be a little bit TOO much like an MMORPG, but I'm adapting to the system.
My DM is planing to run a long-playing 4e campaign soon. He's promised us that leveling will be really fast at first to get us out of the dull low levels before we go crazy.
There's a big thread on GH's forum for a 4th edition game right now.
Aye~ But at least I gave a link to one such game. :lol:
Aye~ But at least I gave a link to one such game. :lol:
Been playing this awhile now. I like it a lot, and a lot of the classes can get really interesting, and fun to play. I am a combat junky, so thats what I like to focus on.
Currently playing a Warlord as my parties only leader, with no healing aside from the base stuff. My goal as this guy is to kill my opponents as fast as possible. Haven't quite gotten a hang of it yet, but I am enjoying myself
Oh, and for the person above me, Wizard is still pretty versatile, he just doesn't become half god at higher levels... <_<
Currently playing a Warlord as my parties only leader, with no healing aside from the base stuff. My goal as this guy is to kill my opponents as fast as possible. Haven't quite gotten a hang of it yet, but I am enjoying myself
Oh, and for the person above me, Wizard is still pretty versatile, he just doesn't become half god at higher levels... <_<
Eh, sorry for bumpin an old thread, but I was curious. How has everyone been liking 4th ed playwise?
I've really been liking it myself, it lets every character actually ya know DO things. Right now I am playing a paragon campaign and have a Warlord. Though my old one just got eaten, so I had to make a new one.
I've really been liking it myself, it lets every character actually ya know DO things. Right now I am playing a paragon campaign and have a Warlord. Though my old one just got eaten, so I had to make a new one.
Well, from a GMing point of view, I've never entered more debates about the rules until 4th edition came out. I'd point out an example, but I'm still laughing at the fact that it took my players over 40 minutes to make an escape plan that only took two rounds to do.
The system is fun, interesting, and engaging. It does feel like an MMO, but that's what it is.
But at the same time, 4th edition should only be treated as if it was a way to introduce P&P RPG systems to brand new players. Now if someone could merge 4th and 3rd, we'd have a near perfect system made in terms of what D&D players of any scale would want.
The system is fun, interesting, and engaging. It does feel like an MMO, but that's what it is.
But at the same time, 4th edition should only be treated as if it was a way to introduce P&P RPG systems to brand new players. Now if someone could merge 4th and 3rd, we'd have a near perfect system made in terms of what D&D players of any scale would want.
On your first point, thats normal. Its new, so you are gonna get into debates I think I am biased 'cause I disliked 3rd intensely because of its variable power levels between characters.
*Shrugs*
I also tend to play the actual you know fighting more than the RP thing. >_< It takes a really good DM to get me to like the RP aspect, and mine changes often due to the nature of where I play.
I think I am biased 'cause I disliked 3rd intensely because of its variable power levels between characters.*Shrugs*
I also tend to play the actual you know fighting more than the RP thing. >_< It takes a really good DM to get me to like the RP aspect, and mine changes often due to the nature of where I play.
No, because I actually like role playing, and see running around blowing things up as a supplement to what my Sorcerer normally does. If I wanted to mindlessly kill ever-escalating Things for ever-escalating Loot, I'd play <a href='http://www.kongregate.com/games/DustinAux/the-enchanted-cave' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>The Enchanted Cave</a> or <a href='http://www.kongregate.com/games/Void/hack-slash-crawl' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>Hack Slash Crawl</a>.