4E Dungeons & Dragons - Verdict?

[Blaidd Drwg]

I don't think its a rules problem but a publishing one. A lot of people I encounter with the latest D&D are unhappy and I find it rubs off.

I'm not criticizing 4e beyond saying I don't find it as much fun.

That's really all I can say about it myself.
I like what 4E does with combat. I like it much better than 3.5-combat. But somehow it all just feels different. I have no idea why that is... O_o

What I really do hate about 4E is what they've done with multi-classing and the whole policy of spreading core content over multiple books. I own the PHB, DMG and MM and I really feel like I've bought half the game (or less).
Grmbl <_<

[torstan]

Interesting discussion. I'm a D&D gamer and I have been playing 3.5 with one group of friends and 4th with another over the last year. I've a few thoughts about the way this has gone. I'm leaning towards 3.5 now but that's as much to do with the fact that my 4e crowd is having a hard time finding time to get together.

I like the 4e streamlining and I think the rulings of minions and cinematic combats are great. I love the way these flow, though they do tend to go on too long. This has caused me to think about how enemies handle encounters when it becomes clear they are going to lose - frequently the case for high hp enemies in 4e. This has actually lead to more roleplaying rather than less. It's also encouraged me to add mid-point complications to combats that make them more interesting. It's a very big change from 3.5 (my 3.5 party is 14th level and if a combat goes on beyond 2-3 rounds something very strange has happened!).

On the other hand I dislike the pure combat focus of the powers in 4e. In 3.5 I loved it when players used weird spells and magic items in the middle of combat. The casting times of rituals mean that non-combat spells will never come up during combat. I'm sure that as my players get more used to the rules they'll start to think a bit more laterally about their options, but right now they're still at the stage of looking at their at will and encounter powers and thinking that they are their only options in combat.

3.5 is getting tough to run at 14th level, but it's still good fun. I just have to make sure that there's only 1 real combat planned for any playing session because these slow things down remarkably. I'll certainly be looking over the Pathfinder rules to see if we should adapt our 3.5 game. I'll also continue to play 4e and I look forward to how the style of play changes as the group get more used to the rules.

I also find that roleplaying picks up as people get more familiar with the rules. FLicking through rulebooks kills the mood a little. I think we're getting back to it now, but there was certainly a dip when we picked up the new rulebooks.

[Novarri]

I can't resist contributing. I like the look of 4e, but though I've had the core books since they were released I've never gotten to play. It is, however, not an evolution from 3.5 but rather an entirely new game built around the same core idea. Still, I love any and all RPG systems just for the idea of them, so I'm not going to just toss one out the window in favor of the other.

In terms of all the combat/RP/etc. arguments, I have to say that for those who favor rules, I'd probably guess GURPS would be up your alley. For RPing or for simple, fluid combat I personally prefer White Wolf's Storyteller system (World of Darkness, Vampire: The Requiem, etc). But neither GURPS nor Storyteller feels just like D&D, and there's something about the way D&D feels to me that makes me love it.

The one complaint I have about D&D, and I have it for both 3.5 and 4e, is that it's not lethal enough. I've never been able to make a campaign where the characters truly worried about dying (but then again, I'm a bad DM and terrible at scaling monster encounters; hopefully 4e's system fixes that a bit, but again, I have yet to try).

So, I can't say I really have a verdict on 4e, except that in theory, I like it. But I also like 3.5, the Storyteller system, GURPS, and other D20 systems in general. It depends on what you're looking for in the game more than whether one is objectively "better" than another.

[Greason Wolfe]

I’ve played Fighting Fantasy, Tunnels & Trolls, Traveller, Star Trek RP, Star Wars RP, Warhammer Fantasy RP, Warhammer 40k RP, Rolemaster, Spacemaster, Alternity, D20 Modern, Twilight 2000, Spymaster, Boot Hill, Call of Cthulu, TMNT, Paranoia, Toon, MERP, Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, GURPS, Rifts, Gamma World, Torg and Stormbringer, but my favourite roleplaying game has always been D&D.

. . . snip . . .

DMG

Holy Possibility Wars . . . I think that's the first mention of that game I've seen in years. It was such an interesting approach, especially with their idea of sending them (the publishers) results from games with the idea of having an effect on other games. Didn't spend a lot of time playing it. The players in my group couldn't quite wrap their heads around the whole concept at the time, but some really great source material.

GW

[Gamerprinter]

My group has always been more old school than being eager for the next edition of the game. We were late in moving from 2e to 3e. We've been playing 3.5e for the last 3 years only. A friend's daughter has recently joined the group and she owns over 100 3.5 books - all the core, and mountains of splat books. Another recent player who joined the group has 50 of his own core and splat, some different the girl's collection. Thus a serious investment in 3.5 books.

None of us are eager to starting a brand new collection of 4e, besides the mixed reviews everywhere is cementing our position with 3.5 indoctrination.

Now that Pathfinder is coming into play, a new direction working with 3.5 is on the horizon, I excited though the rest of my group is apathetic, we'll just have to see when it happens. I've been told I will be getting a pre-release Pathfinder Handbook to assist my development of Kaidan as a publication.

Plus, I've been getting lots of map commission work lately from small publishers developing Pathfinder Compatible settings and game systems, so I'm very much comfortable sticking with 3.5 thinking altogether.

I'm not knocking any edition, just 3.5 is comfortable for me now.

GP

[NeonKnight]

Yeah, I hear a lot of you on the Nat 1/Nat 20 thing, but for my group it's fine.

I just didn't like the 3.5 Skills (as written) where for some characters by 3rd level they would Auto-Succeed in most areas with their skills (Tumble for Rogues, Diplomacy for Bards, Spellcraft for wizards). I wrote a few adventures for 3.0 & 3.5 for the RPGA and found the AUTO-succeeding Character meant I either had to write things in that would penalize one character, and spell certain failure for someone else.

Thus, for me the 1 Always Fails and the 20 always succeeds is a simple rule.

YMMV

[Notsonoble]

The one complaint I have about D&D, and I have it for both 3.5 and 4e, is that it's not lethal enough. I've never been able to make a campaign where the characters truly worried about dying (but then again, I'm a bad DM and terrible at scaling monster encounters; hopefully 4e's system fixes that a bit, but again, I have yet to try).

I have a hard time not killing my characters in 3.5...

[Midgardsormr]

Yeah, if I had that kind of investment in a system, I wouldn't switch either. The only systems I have more than five books for are Rifts and Rolemaster. I ran a five-year-long PBeM game in Rifts at a time when I had way too much disposable income, and Rolemaster was my first RPG. Beyond those, I usually only buy the core books of a given game, so I don't have a huge attachment to any particular system.

Anyway, as long as what you have works and you're having fun, I think you should stick with it. This coming from a guy who finally upgraded from Windows 2000 about six months ago.

[Pilias]

My group tried 4e for a couple of months, then went back to 3.5. I like how they have simplified some portions of the game in 4e (such as some parts of combat), but I think they carried that simplification a bit too far. Skills were done well in 3.5, they really didn't need to be changed for 4. I have far too much to say about my belief that 4e ruined the (admittedly flawed in some areas) 3.5 magic system to go much into it. The lack of ability to create items in 4e is very disappointing as well. In my opinion, 4e has simplified things to the point of restricting players who so choose to follow all of its rules (and not create homebrew rules), we did not need restrictions, we needed some limited simplification, minor rule fixes, and creative new mechanics that made the game more fun.


In short: I prefer 3.5 over 4e

I have to completely disagree with you about the skill system in 3.5, it was completely broken once you got past about level 5. I also like how in 4th edition they have consolidated many skills into a package, in 3.5 there are skills that are obviously of greater value because they are so useful while there are others that only get used once in a blue moon. Some of this may change from DM to DM but overall there are certain skills in the 3.5 system that are extremely useful in almost all games and others that are only useful sometimes. The skill system is one place that 4th ed shines IMO.

[Pilias]

Have to say that I am in agreement with Midgardsormr on this one. Some of the best times I've ever had at the table back when I played, were based on those background skills and having a way to adjudicate them. Admittedly, they don't all have to be based on dice rolling, but there have been plenty of times when some, seemingly useless skill has turned the tide in an adventure.

Of course such things shouldn't be ignored by DM/GMs, but without some way to define and/or adjudicate them, things can get bogged down. Any such skills need to make sense for the character as well and be a reasonable part of their background.

I can recall one particular instance where the other players and myself were all starting with "new" characters that had never "adventured" before. My character was a farm boy that had spent his youth slaughtering livestock for meals and wrestling with his older siblings. When we hit the first battle, that wrestling experience came in handy and, after the bloodshed, my character, along with one other, were the only ones that didn't get "sick" from seeing all the dead bodies and flowing blood. It made for a really good RP session as everyone actually got into their characters from a background point of view rather than a "mechanical" point of view. From there on, everyone developed their characters based on that background rather than "min/maxing" for optimal character effectiveness.

GW

I will state again, they added on rules for backgrounds in the PHB2, one of the big differences in 4th ed is the core books are just that, core books, the basics on what you need to run a game, if you want expansions to the system you buy expansion books, like the PHB2 for Backgrounds and new character options, or the Draconomicon if you want to give out cool treasure ect ect.

Its not that the rules aren't there, its just that they have repackaged them and spread them out in a more modular way.

On top of that another great thing about 4th ed is the tables provided in the DMG for DMs to provide good DCs for anything not covered by the rules, that table is one of the most useful things in the world for me because I don't have to cross reference anything when I'm throwing out DCs for things not covered by the rules.