Community

bobthedog wrote:

I smell a story. :D

Well, not really.

He was an Eladrin Warlord in a group full of Warlocks, Rangers and Wizards (no Defenders). He had to melee the dragon, the rest of us could pelt it from a distance. We all positioned ourselves to be out of breath-weapon range, whereas he was right on top of the beasty. Two successful recharges later, he was making death saves.

The session was primarily a meet-and-greet while we rolled up characters and got the campaign background together. At the end the DM (one of the AD&D guys) suggested that we try out the dragon encounter from D&DXP so everyone could get a feel for the system. I kind of expected a TPK to be honest, but we only lost the Warlord.

Doom_Linnorm wrote:

4th is very easy to expand upon, balance isn't very hard, character creation is quick and easy, true it doesn't have the versatility of 3rd but it makes up for that with more fun and less tediousness.
People who care a lot about the RP side can focus more easily on it BECAUSE there are less numbers attached to it.
A flexible DM can make easier and more creative use.

This is exactly the case.

My friend picked up the DMs job (we're alternating each week) for the first time on an ongoing basis, he's not too familiar with all the rules yet (though if he needs help, I'm available) but with little effort has already crafted several balanced, custom monsters to challenge the party.


The book layout doesn't seem much different than previous editions, excepting maybe first edition, but it reads better than previous editions to me. Several newer players have commented that it's much easier to read than the 3e books. The new section on creating and helping RP your character at the beginning of the PHB is great for helping new players and for refreshing older players, the rest seems to follow the traditional layout in order:races, classes, skills et al, equipment, combat rules, spells(rituals); I don't see a difference there.

As with every edition of D&D it plays much better than it reads that's always been true, I'd advise playing a good 4 hour session that utilizes most of the new mechanics (if you play it wanting it to suck though it will; try and keep an open mind), but having at least read the book before passing judgement at least gives one some credibility.

Kursk wrote:

This true of 4.0 It is the most poorly written RPG I've purchased since '77. It's not one 1/2 as bad as it reads though.

Riiigghhht. You haven't dropped a lot of cash, then.

Kursk wrote:

No, just most of the major systems over the last 30 years...

RPGs did exists before you were born you know?

Yeh, and I've played through most of them and read most of them. Alternity, WoD 1st ed, 1st edition D&d, etc., all read more poorly than 4th edition.

Decivre wrote:

• GURPS. Great system, horribly annoying to learn.
  
• Palladium's system, as fun as it could be when you got the hang of it, had the worst-written combat mechanics ever. Two words... mega-damage.
  
• Marvel Superheroes Roleplaying Game.
  
• The earliest Battletech books were horribly organized, which thankfully improved more and more as editions were released, despite the minimal changes to the rule system.
  
• 1st Edition Shadowrun
  

I had shut that painful memory out of my mind. Palladium's books read like a physics handbook that has been written by a five year old.