|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 6:22PM
#41
|
|
|
I've played since original, but skipped 3rd; I was in college and not playing DnD in those days.
I think 4e is a great game, I like it a lot. I guess it hit the "mark" for me. If you're asking if its perfect, of course not. There's no such thing.
I feel kind of fortunate that I didn't play 3rd. Ignorance is bliss, I don't really have to think about these edition wars. Personally I find them funny - if you hate 4e so much, why keep coming back here to post? To torture yourself? LOL I'm not talking about anyone specifically, just in general.
I wonder, when 3e came out, did everyone complain how it was so different then 2nd? Or was it, even then, the perfect game some would have me believe?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 6:24PM
#42
|
|
|
I do think that 4e is by leaps and bounds a FAR superior system to it's predecessors. However its by no means perfect. Some of the most glaring issues are that of alignment, they settled on a middle ground no one really seemed to like. Epic tier play for implement users, especially seeing as anyone attacking fort is really boned seeing as epic tier monsters forts tend to usually be higher than their AC. First few levels of play, only 1 encounter power makes fights long drawn out and dull. Some obviously lacking powers (such as daily utilities that do the same thing as encounter utilities in other classes/at slightly later level).
Other than that I think 4e is an amazing system. Especially for DMing. 4e is so much easier to DM than 3.5 it isn't even funny. DMing 3.5 wasn't fun, it was a full-time job. 4e is much more balanced, fun to play for everyone, and overall from what I've seen a much better experiance.
Not that I'm knocking 3.5, I loved it, but let's face it. 3.5 had some seriously glaring flaws and huge holes that made it almost unplayable near the end for my group due to the enormous disparity of power between the 2 power gamers in our group and the more casual gamers. I'd probably play a 3.5 game again if I found a group for it and someone else wanted to DM, but I'd never DM a 3.5 game again, ever.
But to answer the question; did 4e hit the mark? I'd say undeniably yes. It's a great system that's easy to learn but difficult to master. It's an evolving system that has benchmarks to avoid grotesquely overpowered design flaws. It's a great system to play with friends and not get upset having to open your PHB every 30 minutes and "see line of effect."
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 6:25PM
#43
|
|
|
I wonder, when 3e came out, did everyone complain how it was so different then 2nd? Or was it, even then, the perfect game some would have me believe?
I wasn't in the hobby yet at that point, but from what I've heard, it was exactly the same. Peopled whined of it being "a boardgame" or "Diablo II on paper". Pretty much the exact same stuff that people complain about now.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS.
Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 6:32PM
#44
|
|
|
i wanna comment since i Like 4e its a good game but never seemed like a D&D game to me.
1: no customization, really isn't much your ethier A or B, i was really disappointed when i picked up 4e wanting to do an enchanter to find... well really wasn't one... was no specializtion of magic schools i was either a nuker or a CCer wasn't any real nichie and for most part if look at 20 fighters side by side either gonna be A or B. Biggest complaint right here, sure going to add this in time but... charging us for that content was PART of the base game in all other editions... wasn't real happy with this.
2: sameism, what do i mean? if i pick up a fighter and play him and then i pick up my wizard they play general the same. Use same combat system, no real vairation here, my fighter is melee my wizard is ranged but in general BOTH feel the same... in 3.5 i never had that feeling of sameness.
3: Releasing an unfinished product, yes they did this believe it or not 4e in my eyes was unfinished. why? well lets look... were several base classes just were not added. sorc, druid, and barb to me were base classes existed in 3.5 as base classes even announced as a class early on but now... we don't have them? then what did was had partial bits of the class so! they add those classes then charge us for them... sorry but to thats like ripping the 3.5 manual in half and saying " here half will cost you 20 bucks other half will cost you 20 bucks..." i feel like there just trying to rip us off now.
All in all i do enjoy 4e i mean not a bad system in and of itself, is it perfect? AHHAHA no way... sorry its far from perfect i think still prefer 3.5 at its core was a much more defined system. is 4e more balanced? sure... but D&D IS NOT an MMO balance was never important factor i never had a fighter complain he was to weak and couldn't kill our druid player why? BECAUSE your all on same team! if your fighting each other then something really wrong with the campaign.
is 4e perfect no, is 4e bad no, is it a decent game sure. However i don't think 4e is even comparable to older systems and games, i do like some of the changes but are alot more that i detest. the power system? its not horrible it did well in TOB but i like old magic system much better. Like i said... all classes feel sameish now, i'm just not a huge fan of 4e but as i said before not horrible i give it like a 7/10.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 6:34PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
You know, no one yet has ever explained to me how the Spellplague was worse than all the other times FR has ruined itself forever. I got fed up and quit when all the dragons went nuts, personally.
Not an argument, because I'm only aware of the realms via books and one abysmal game only player RP kept afloat in a sea of DM 'self love' over realsmlore, just... no one has ever said what the difference was.
You know, no one yet has ever explained to me how the Spellplague was worse than all the other times FR has ruined itself forever. I got fed up and quit when all the dragons went nuts, personally.
Not an argument, because I'm only aware of the realms via books and one abysmal game only player RP kept afloat in a sea of DM 'self love' over realsmlore, just... no one has ever said what the difference was.
Well, at least you knew the year of rogue dragons was coming.
1) Why the complete change in geography? Yes, 3.0 "morphed" it a bit so it would all fit on a foldout map, but basically kept everything.
2) Volo is dead. How am I supposed to know what taverns serve the best ale now?
3) Not that I'm against a more dangerous Realms - I posted one of my old timelines in the worlds forum somewhere. But this was such a massive change to end up with "points of light".
Basically, if I follow the 4E book (and if I understand correctly, they're not planning on releasing more for the realms), the ten thousand or so pages of Realmslore I have are all pretty much worthless.
3rd edition modified: 4th just scrapped the world and rewrote it from scratch. It wasn't even a natural progression of time - they just had a world shattering cataclysm and then described the new world that formed after (except Baldur's Gate, which stayed pretty much the same I'm sure in no small part thanks to a certain CRPG trilogy).
Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms have both been around a long time (since 1st edition days at least). And they have always been different - different gods, different flavor for magic (the weave), differing levels of magic (FR more high magic, Greyhawk more low magic). Why try to make them feel the same now?
People who played in the Realms liked that it was different from Greyhawk (and Mystara and every other setting that has come and gone), or else they would be playing in one of those other settings. Making the Realms match the others seems like a losing bet, unless all you want are sales of a single book.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 6:45PM
#46
|
|
|
i wanna comment since i Like 4e its a good game but never seemed like a D&D game to me.
1: no customization, really isn't much your ethier A or B, i was really disappointed when i picked up 4e wanting to do an enchanter to find... well really wasn't one... was no specializtion of magic schools i was either a nuker or a CCer wasn't any real nichie and for most part if look at 20 fighters side by side either gonna be A or B. Biggest complaint right here, sure going to add this in time but... charging us for that content was PART of the base game in all other editions... wasn't real happy with this.
To me, the classes seem to have many chocies. There are tons of powers to choose from, so not every character will be the same. As well, there are different feats to take, and different weapon specializations, for example. I really don't see the "A or B" thing.
2: sameism, what do i mean? if i pick up a fighter and play him and then i pick up my wizard they play general the same. Use same combat system, no real vairation here, my fighter is melee my wizard is ranged but in general BOTH feel the same... in 3.5 i never had that feeling of sameness.
Again, disagree. Who cares that they use the same system? They play entirely different. They achieved difference without resorting to clunky, broken subsystems.
3: Releasing an unfinished product, yes they did this believe it or not 4e in my eyes was unfinished. why? well lets look... were several base classes just were not added. sorc, druid, and barb to me were base classes existed in 3.5 as base classes even announced as a class early on but now... we don't have them?
Those were several 3E base classes. I don't see why 4E is obligated to have the exact same class lineup as 3E. Having different classes does not make it "incomplete".
And where did they say that they would be released as 4E base classes?
then what did was had partial bits of the class so! they add those classes then charge us for them... sorry but to thats like ripping the 3.5 manual in half and saying " here half will cost you 20 bucks other half will cost you 20 bucks..." i feel like there just trying to rip us off now.
Umm, yeah, that's not true. At all.
The 4E books are just as complete as the 3E ones. It isn't "half the 3E books". It is a complete game. You just have to think of it in terms of "4E lets me play 4E" instead of "4E does not let me play 3E."
All in all i do enjoy 4e i mean not a bad system in and of itself, is it perfect? AHHAHA no way... sorry its far from perfect i think still prefer 3.5 at its core was a much more defined system.
How was it "more defined"? It was a jumble of subsystems. 4E is actually consolidated, so it isn't a free for all.
is 4e more balanced? sure... but D&D IS NOT an MMO balance was never important factor i never had a fighter complain he was to weak and couldn't kill our druid player why? BECAUSE your all on same team! if your fighting each other then something really wrong with the campaign.
First, MMO. Classy.
Second, although you are on the same team, do you really want to be the baggage carrier while the players who chose good classes get to have fun?
The "team games don't need to be balanced!" arguement is flawed. If you are going to be so lazy as to not even worry about making all standard choices viable, why even make them?
is 4e perfect no, is 4e bad no, is it a decent game sure. However i don't think 4e is even comparable to older systems and games, i do like some of the changes but are alot more that i detest. the power system? its not horrible it did well in TOB but i like old magic system much better. Like i said... all classes feel sameish now, i'm just not a huge fan of 4e but as i said before not horrible i give it like a 7/10.
I agree it isn't perfect.
But I prefer the power system because:
1) Everyone can now do interesting things, not just the Casters.
2) We no longer have to deal with moronic subsystems.
3) With the previous two in combination, there is no longer the problem of the God Caster.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS.
Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 6:55PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2004
|
I really like the 4e system, but I do have some issues with it:
- I'd like to have seen a more robust list of Utility Powers, with each class having several combat-based and non-combat-based options at each level.
- A clearer separation of what makes each power source unique. Tying into the above, having a few utility powers available to anyone with a certain power source would have been nice.
- Let's finish the Goldilocks schtick with Pg 42 DCs. This one's too hard. This one's too easy. Let's have one juuust right.
- I'd like to see a mechanical reason for someone to have a one-hand weapon style (ie no shield or offhand weapon). It's kind of what I was expecting from the Rogue class, but didn't get it. Tempted to make a Rogue class option for that, actually.
- The skills system almost went far enough. Personally, I would have preferred they give each class a specific trained skill (like Wizard's Arcana or Ranger's Nature/Dungeoneering choice), then given a universal number of trainings that could be in any skill.
This is of course leaving out the issues that are basically "they haven't released X yet:" necromancers and summoners, more rituals and non-combat magic items, etc.
Rhymes with Bruce
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 7:08PM
#48
|
|
|
Now to actually take a crack at this. The things I think they missed the mark on:
- Daily powers: I'm not entirely comfortable with them. Nova potential. I still like per day HS though, because it has that whole "wearing out" feel to it.
- Small size weapon restrictions: A crippling type-casting penalty for no particular reason, with no benifit to offset it! I wouldn't want any sort of "compensation" bonus for it anayway, as that would just help type-cast them MORE.
- Racial Type-Casting: For that matter, I dislike how many races are type-cast because of their abilities. Dwarves for example, with their ability to ignore armour penalties to speed. Even worse is stuff like the Orc, which is type-cast into the "Trarg SMASH!" role. I understand that they have these type-casts because of their traditional role, but if you are going to let me make an Orc Wizard, I expect my racial power to NOT become completely useless.
- Alignment: It's still there!
There are probably more. Maybe I'll remember them later.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS.
Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 7:11PM
#49
|
- Want Cheese With That Whine?
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2005
|
I liked the elimination of needless things that just made things a headache, like monster/NPC/PC symmetry. Yeah, it's nice if you can exchange a PC with any monster in any situation, but statting out monsters and NPCs the same as PCs was a disaster. There were too many constraints, and LA was absolutely awful.
I don't like the elimination of some combat maneuvers, notably tripping. And the grapple rules aren't restrictive enough. They are way better than 3e grapple rules, but I think that alternate combat maneuvers should have more substance to them.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 7:20PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
How much would it have taken to satisfy you? Is every aspect of the game irredeemable to you, or would a few minor tweaks have made it a game you can respect and enjoy?
4e is really pretty good. In terms of fun, it comes up about even with 3e. What it gains in some areas, it looses in others. It's more mechanically balanced, but also more mechanically rigid. It's faster, but at a price in terms of immersion.
The biggest fundamental problem I have with 4e is the monster and PC mechanics being entirely separate. 3e was a bit too mechanically rigid on paper, and yet was often too uncertain in application. But 4e's attempt to fix those problems ended up creating a worse one.
It's the rare game night where the mechanical differences between PCs and NPCs doesn't seriously effect things. The NPC that recharges his encounter power every turn and ends up using far more then any PC could, or the elite monster that uses a healing power and gets way more HP then a PC, or the ease with which monsters can take OAs, these differences irk my players at times. Adding to that are the things that only bother me as a DM, the monster that never recharges his abilities, the crits that are insignificant and the inflexibility of many monsters gets in the way.
Even beyond the mechanical quirks, it pushes the board game feel of 4e. The PCs are not part of the world, they are entirely different creatures with a different set of rules.
If you could fix that, I would probably consider 4e the best ever. Not perfect, but better then 3e.
Jay
|
|
|
