|
5 months ago ::
Feb 06, 2013 - 11:14AM
#21
|
|
|
4th edition is enjoyed by some people as well, although I'm not one of them. I felt like this version actively did everything it could to alienate people who enjoyed playing dungeons and dragons by eliminating aspects which required problem-solving and learning how to deal with setbacks. Much of the advice given in editions prior to this one have stood the test of time. The 1st edition DMG is still worth a read from time to time. Much of what is advised in 4th edition is workable only for a small subset of players with a specific play style or people who haven't already tried the recommended play style "ages" ago and discovered that (at least for them/us) its flaws outweighed its merits. Bad advice and philosophy wouldn't be enough to avoid this edition, but these concepts sneak into the rules as well. Otherwise, mechanically, 4th isn't drastically different than 3.0 or 3.5... a high roll is good; a low roll is bad generally. Positive modifiers are good and negative modifiers are bad. It's difficult to make a critique without appearing overly negative. These boards have plenty of 4th edition fans, I just wanted to provide a counterpoint to their positive review since I was disappointed in the edition.
Edition warring? Right here? In front of the children? You monster.
Maybe you should give 4e another try sometime. There is no lack of problem-solving or setbacks in our games. It's a simple matter of the DM creating challenges but leaving the solutions to the players and making failure both interesting and consequential. That's edition neutral and 4e does nothing on its own to negate those aspects.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 06, 2013 - 11:41AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
4th edition is enjoyed by some people as well, although I'm not one of them. I felt like this version actively did everything it could to alienate people who enjoyed playing dungeons and dragons by eliminating aspects which required problem-solving and learning how to deal with setbacks. Much of the advice given in editions prior to this one have stood the test of time. The 1st edition DMG is still worth a read from time to time. Much of what is advised in 4th edition is workable only for a small subset of players with a specific play style or people who haven't already tried the recommended play style "ages" ago and discovered that (at least for them/us) its flaws outweighed its merits. Bad advice and philosophy wouldn't be enough to avoid this edition, but these concepts sneak into the rules as well. Otherwise, mechanically, 4th isn't drastically different than 3.0 or 3.5... a high roll is good; a low roll is bad generally. Positive modifiers are good and negative modifiers are bad. It's difficult to make a critique without appearing overly negative. These boards have plenty of 4th edition fans, I just wanted to provide a counterpoint to their positive review since I was disappointed in the edition.
Edition warring? Right here? In front of the children? You monster.
Maybe you should give 4e another try sometime. There is no lack of problem-solving or setbacks in our games. It's a simple matter of the DM creating challenges but leaving the solutions to the players and making failure both interesting and consequential. That's edition neutral and 4e does nothing on its own to negate those aspects.
I probably should have just stopped at "I recommend 3.5 because..." and let someone else say "I like 4e because..." but c's post about "what roleplaying games are about" needed a counterpoint, since he and i seem to get enjoyment from very different aspects of the game.
How's this...
Buy them all! Each one has pros and cons. Try every edition until you find the one that's right for you!
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 10:10AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2004
|
If you can get your hands on AD&D books, that is 1st edition, then that would probably be the easiest to play.
There were no skills, no feats, no domains, no opportunity attacks, no extra stuff.
Races were few.
Humans were the only race that can excel in levels.
Warriors used all weapons and armor if they were proficient in it, no other skills other than chopping and bashing
Clerics wore armor, used blunt weapons, turned undead, and cast spells
Mages wore no armor, cast spells from a book, and had fun with wands and staves.
Thieves wore light armor, enjoyed cool backstabs and had set skills.
Monks were lame for a long time until they got better skills in later level.
Bards were the optional class back then.
XP was based on kills and number of gold pieces found and taken.
Magic items were plentiful.
+2 weapons were not dangerous over +1 weapons like 3.5e and 4e with level requirements.
It was a rough around the edge type fo D&D but easy to play.
|
|
|
