D&D 4th Ed

Mr. Presentable

Does anyone play it, and what's it like?

Thinking about getting a few old friends over and trying the new....

I started with DnD in about 1981 with the red box (with the feckin* crayon to colour the dice ) and my last version was ADnD 1st Edition which I stopped in about 90-92. Has a lot changed since then?

seithon

I do and its good.
People complain the rules are simplified but really the rules now are adjusted to govern over combat primarily while leaving the GM and players free to decide how out of combat things are resolved. I do miss having the random loot tables however...

JesterWX

Started with the Red box too (and that crayon). I did go through all the AD&D versions. D&D v3 and 3.5 as well and am playing 4th Ed. occasionally.

Take it from me, other than some of the words/names, 4th ed. has more in common with MMORPGs than it has with the Red box. That's not to diss the game though I do like it and it's easy to learn....

beemanfunk

JesterWX wrote: »

Take it from me, other than some of the words/names, 4th ed. has more in common with MMORPGs than it has with the Red box. That's not to diss the game though I do like it and it's easy to learn....

I'd would say that's a fair statement. 4e is trying to be more like the MMORPGs. Still when you think about it, a lot of the good Mumorpgers focus on working with other players as a team, which should be one of the focus of DnD. You're a group of adventurers working together to fight monsters. I kind of felt like 3.0 and 3.5 seemed to focus on characters who had really cool powers, but they didn't always work in tandem with the other characters, with the exception of a Cleric, but all their teamwork involves is just healing everyone one else.

I think one good thing about 4e is that every class gets interesting powers, and everyone is useful at any level and they're all balanced. However, the downside of this is that sometimes a lot of the powers, statistically speaking, tend to be similar after a while. Still, over all, it means that Fighters are a lot more interesting with what they can do, rather than just getting extra fighter feats. Some argue that Wizards are less interesting because they have less spell, but I'd much rather have a Wizard who has a little less variety, but is useful through out the battle being able to do something (Magic Missie being an At Will Power for example), rather than one who can use a lot of different powers, but being forced to hide in a corner when his spell slots run out for the day, which could be frequent, especially at low levels.

You also don't have to have a Cleric in your party when you form a group. You can have a Warlord fill in that role. You can theoretically get away without a Leader role. While this means you have to plan your party a little bit more carefully (A Paladin as a healer of sorts for example), but anyone can at least use their second wind if needed.

Anyway, I like 4e. For anyone who argues that it's too simplified or streamlined is probably just annoyed at the fact that they finally got 3.5 rules down without the need for a book, which for me, was a feat I could never attain, because I found a lot of 3.5 rules very complex. :pac:

Sarky

4th ed.'s ok. It does what D&D was always pretty good at- A bunch of people beating up monsters- and streamlines it in a mummorpegeh fashion. The RP part of the RPG is a bit thin on the ground to my eyes, but D&D was always more about the fighting and cool powers than story depth or setting richness. Get yourself a good GM and he'she can compensate for that (Although if story is your thing what are you doing playing D&D?).

Worth playing, I dunno if I'd bother buying the books when someone else has them.

Oh, and don't forget your battlemat and miniatures. According to the books, buying them makes it more fun!

Nevyn

Cos I love the stories and settings of Ferun thats why

Sarky

I always hated Faerun and everything in it. Different strokes etc., I guess.

Jilm

Sarky wrote: »

Oh, and don't forget your battlemat and miniatures. According to the books, buying them makes it more fun!

Battlemat, pffft...

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/surfacescapes-puts-dungeons-and-dragons-on-surface-makes-your-d20/

beemanfunk

Sarky wrote: »

Oh, and don't forget your battlemat and miniatures. According to the books, buying them makes it more fun!

To be fair, I don't really like that about 4th ed. I'm not really a big war-gamer, so miniatures is a bit of a turn off. Still, it's one of the few faults I can over look. Just some graph paper and some various coins, and you can get around needing to invest in minis and tiles and such. I actually did find that playing 3.5 that we would occasionally need to have tactical maps for combat sometimes, but we usually just used glass beads or dice.

I can understand that DnD is trying to get back to it roots.