How do you like 4E?

[The Swordgaunt]

You can [...] even play a bad game of checkers because the hot-headed piece called Hugo won't wait for his back-up and charges ahead.

This might be one of the more memorable quotes I've seen in this forum.

I agree totally. I have arrived at two systems myself. I either play Storyteller (the new version is really quite good), or d20 (3.5). What I like about the latter is that it is not at all too different from the old AD&D 2nd Ed, with a liberal sprinkling of houserules, that we used back when I was introduced to gaming.

The new 4E is just not my cup of tea. It has what I expect from a level based system, with all its idiosyncracies and "features". frankly, I see the new edition as one more marketing plot to squeeze yet another buck from the gaming community. Wizards became the leading actor after White Wolf bungled the whole Gehenna-thing and lost the interest of their customers. D20 pulled many of us old ones back to the polyhedral dice after years of d10's. Now, I am not saying that launching a new system is an inherently bad thing, but as with most marketing plots, I ask myself, "is this something I need?". In this particular case, my answer is, "no."

In time, that might change, though. Ten years ago I never thought I'd buy another Player's either.

[...]no way a rogue will outshine a spellcaster outside combat unless he has only cared for damage spells and things like that).

Whithout derailing the discussion, I see your point, but I do not agree. I believe it might come down to playing styles though. I have found that if the lowest skill point gain is 4/lvl, the whole game becomes more balanced. Both Fighters and Wizards become more than walking warmachines.

Anorther move is to make spells less available. Research takes time, and especially if they cannot simply be pulled from thin air. Hunting for spellbooks, scrolls, and lab-equipment is, imo, a part of being a magician.

[Vicente]

Whithout derailing the discussion, I see your point, but I do not agree. I believe it might come down to playing styles though. I have found that if the lowest skill point gain is 4/lvl, the whole game becomes more balanced. Both Fighters and Wizards become more than walking warmachines.

Anorther move is to make spells less available. Research takes time, and especially if they cannot simply be pulled from thin air. Hunting for spellbooks, scrolls, and lab-equipment is, imo, a part of being a magician.

I think the problem with the wizard is not so much their skill points (as they tend to have high intelligence) but their class skill list (where the rogue really shines).

About the search for spells, well, I just said that spellcasters where a problem in 2e/3e as they could do everything, that's why in 4e classes "seem" to be similar. Of course it can be solved by houseruling (although with priests it's harder...).

[The Swordgaunt]

[snip]

*treads carefully so as not to hijack the thread

Priests can be a tricky subject, I agree, but one I believe is kept in check by setting and fluff. They are, as I see it, toghether with the paladin, the class that is most bound by factors outside of the group. They will have both an order and a (sometimes vengeful) god looking very carefully at anything they do.

Skill lists are another issue alltogether, and I have my own lists.

But, just to put me in a camp, I am firmly in the storytelling one, as laid out by Kenneth a few posts up. Yes, I agree that 3.5 is far from perfect, but then again, I have yet to find a system that is. I seriously doubt that this Holy Grail of RPG even exists. And this is why I'm not making the jump to 4E. I do not see that it brings anything really new, or better, to the way I play. This is only one man's opinnion, though.

[dundjinnmasta]

If I have to house-rule a bunch of things just to make the game playable then frankly I don't want to play the game. House-ruling isn't necessarily balanced and there is so many different house-rules and ways to use them that it varies from party to party. I prefer a game that I play out of the book and frankly 3.x is a very difficult beast of burden if you don't house-rule.

[The Swordgaunt]

If I have to house-rule a bunch of things just to make the game playable then frankly I don't want to play the game. House-ruling isn't necessarily balanced and there is so many different house-rules and ways to use them that it varies from party to party. I prefer a game that I play out of the book and frankly 3.x is a very difficult beast of burden if you don't house-rule.

Hmm. I don't see it that way. I see it more as if a system is like a pair of shoes. You need to break them in before they fit properly. I see the development of house-rules as being a part of the game itself. You find a rule you don't like, and make it better, or you cut it. Take my skill-patch, for instance. I happen to think that skills are important, so I adapted that part of the rules.

As for your "beast of burden" analogy, yes, I agree, but once reared properly, it will carry you where ever you want to go

[NaMaN]

I still play Birthright by the original 2nd edition rules. I don`t see the need for two new editions every decade, especially more combat oriented versions, even though I agree that roleplaying is much up to players and dungeon masters. Why not rather develop the old system, fix unlogic rules and so on. There is much about the ad&d 2nd edition thats not to my liking, but it would not take wery much effort to adjust them. Better if Wotc used the effort to publish the great lot of stuff that were never made to the birthright campain, and developed the world, the people, and "world-spesific" rules rather than the game mechanics.. And I would also like to see more birthright novels, such as the earlier planned (The shadow stone by richard baker(converted to forgotten realms), siege by simon hawke and aquitania by lynn abbey). Thats me anyway...

[Dcolby]

Late to the party as always...4E has left me rather cold. I find that it is simply a an MMORPG converted to paper and it seems that people when playing it are more concerned with the "proper Build" and fine tuning of the mechanics rather than the roleplay. Thats fine if you want to chew through a dungeon, But I must be an old dog now cause I like the interaction more than the action. Birthright for example is a very rich "roleplay" setting that I even thought about continuing using 2nd edition rules for even though my group was purely 3.5.

[hirumatogeru]

D&D 4E does have a distinct MMORPG feel to it. I can't stop thinking about WoW when playing it, and how every class is designed to be equal to the others.

The roles also help to define what a class can do, but this also reminds me of WoW-type games.

4E is a good game for what it is. It's not better or worse than any other game system out there, it is just different. It works for dungeon crawls very well, I'll give it that. Players survive a lot longer if they work together as well. But personally I enjoy a more lethal RPG, something where there is a constant threat of death or injury no matter how powerful a PC is.

For me, Savage Worlds is my perfect system and I'll stick with that for now.

[Dcolby]

Lethality does have its virtues. Savage worlds is by the same people that did the original Deadlands right? Does it share any systems or is it a comepletely new?

[Jerrith]

I personally enjoy 4E greatly. Combat, especially, now feels far more balanced and interesting. Characters have the ability to dance across the battlefield with a plethora of powers at their disposal, regardless of class.

My background is playing as a melee class in 3rd edition. The extent of my combat was largely rolling a d20 for a nondescript slash. The pinnacle of achievement was when I finally got to roll a second d20 (with penalty) again in a round. In duels especially, it would have been exciting to add some more mobility to the fight, but moving would break the full attack action for minimal benefit, so both sides remained parked just tossing blows at each other.

Our group largely focuses on roleplaying, and the large lists of abilities for all classes, including widely different attacks for martial classes each with their own flavor, has really brought our combat situations to life. Now my ranger is striking his foes with all his might while weaving through the fray like I had envisioned all along. The descriptions of the abilities help us describe what our attack looks like on the battlefield, and is fuel for a memorable battle. Also, spellcasters no longer dominate the field, so each character feels like they are making a worthwhile contribution to the party.

I really do not miss the lack of long lists of skills. All our non-combat situations were always roleplayed out with a minimum of rolling, so our group did not feel any sting in the change there. Our most common rolls--bluff checks opposed by insight--both still exist in the skill tree, along with the important diplomacy and intimidate.

The biggest issue I have faced so far is that combat is slowed down considerably when playing with those who have analysis paralysis, hold a tactical deliberation every turn, or are unfamiliar with their class's abilities. If each player takes over a minute deciding what to do during their turn, combat can really start to drag. To help alleviate this, advise players to make their own power cards, which will remind them of what they have and have the relevant math for each pre-printed. Some DMs might even want to enforce a turn time limit: 10 to 20 seconds maximum to announce their action, or their turn is delayed or they automatically assume total defense.