The old graph paper and pencil game.

[Valynth]

As none of you know, I've taken up DnD in my spare time.

The allure of being able to experience the constant shifting of power granted by a d20 to those who don't build ridiculously overpowered characters and the DM's slaughtering of those who do was simply too great for me to ignore for long.

Though, truth be told, I have always kept an eye on the culture surrounding the mystical sided idols that compose the gods of such a group.  I've listened to the haggard veterans tell their tales of mysticism, heroes, and rolled stats, while invoking the occasional hellfire on the one behind the shield of thin cardboard and text.

This new DnD though....  Was honestly a bit of a let down.  The classes no longer have such strict advantage/disadvantage tables of earlier versions.  The fighters can now hit for damage akin to a mage's fire ball (which is now a 5th level daily spell), mages now have at will spells (negating the early penalties of being a mage by giving them spells they can cast as much as they want), and clerics who were once necessary for mid-combat healing are now resigned to utter uselessness in the face of bloated hit points along the lines of a first level mage having around 24.

On the good side, they did away with the old stat rolling system (for official events at least) in favor of a point buy system so players can strategically acquire stats instead of being screwed by a bad roll for the rest of the character's probably short life.

Anyway, I've gotten an insidership to have a look at new classes that were actually old classes dropped by WOC to release in updated books.  I can hear their accountants rubbing their hands together gleefully.  Back to the topic, the new sorcerer class has some very nasty first level abilities that I'm gonna try out on my group.  Heck, the first level at will can hit an entire room of enemies for 1D6+cha mod if I roll evens on the attack rolls (with 1D10+cha mod for the first enemy).

I predict it will get nerfed on the actual release, but I could be wrong.

[Ryudo Lee]

My group refuses to acknowledge 4th ed, except for one of us who attempted to run a 4th ed game and then swore it off for life.

[Noone]

I've played a lot of DnD, 2.0 later versions of 2, 3.0.. 3.5. I have to say, 4.0 doesn't bring a lot to the table and takes a lot away, consequently, it takes a lot of the mistakes in 2 that were corrected in 3 and bring them right back.

First thing, dump-stats, I noticed, when making a rogue in 4.0, that one could have an intelligence of 3 with almost no repercussions. The main one being of course, that in 3, the amount of skills a character received were dependent on intelligence, while in four, skills are essentially chosen for you. There were some choices involved but they're limited at best. Similarly, I also noticed that while dumping wisdom to 3 would have a nasty effect on my perception skill, there really isn't any reason not to if it makes other stats higher. I find a lot of classes in 4 can set intelligence to 3, and one of wisdom or charisma to 3 without any realistic penalties. A low charisma in 3 wasn't such a big deal, but a low wisdom would have an averse effect on one's will save, and a low intelligence meant a low amount of skills. I say this brings back a mistake of 2.0, because in 2, a non spellcaster character could have an intelligence, wisdom, AND charisma of 3 without any penalties.

The next beef I have with 4 is that they base nearly EVERYTHING on 1/2 character level. It drives me nuts, especially as far as saving throws go, since characters with equal stats are guaranteed to have very similar saving throws. They do this for BAB too, so, a wizard with equal stats as a fighter of the same level can fight just as well, barring feats/proficiencies applied. Of course, wizards are probably a bad example, but I think Paladins and Clerics are the bigger concerns. Clerics get heavy armor, decent melee weapon choices, and the same BAB as fighters. Paladins also get plate proficiency, fighters do not. And of course, lets not forget that clerics heal, have other abilities, etc, fighters get things like they can once a day add their constitution modifier to damage when using a spear. They also made it so that every character gets the exact same number of feats, further making the classes blend over one another almost unrecognizably.

They also completely threw out the spells system, even 2.0 had a better magic system than 4. I mean really, they divided spells into at-will stuff, things you could use once per fight, and things you could use once per day. Barring the once per day abilities, they just threw all elements of conserving spells out the window. They also killed the variety of spells that a caster had, mages, clerics, and druids had a wide variety of spells to choose from, and in 4, they have like.... a choice between 4 or 5 different abilities? Even a first level cleric or mage had a lot of variety to choose from in 3.5, mage armor, sleep, color spray, POE, shield, magic missile even non combat spells too, like identify or tenser's floating disc.

I think I could go on, but suffice to say, it's probably best to stick to 3.5, (without using the splat-books of course). 4.0 has very few redeeming things about it. About the only problems I see with 3.5 are the trip and disarm mechanics. (NWN1 actually has a really nice handle on that, with the discipline system). The 3.0/3.5 system was something that worked, something that didn't need change, it's actually the same mistake made in Heroes of Might and Magic 4, they tried to fix something that wasn't broken and the end result was something terrible.

[Dannysaysnoo]

I've only ever played 4ed, and don't see the fuss. I think it's good.

[Tipod]

I know essentially nothing about DnD and Fourth Edition, except that it's supposed to be like a streamlined, combat-focused kind of game. I could get into that

[Valynth]

I think one of my friends put it best: "They're trying to be WoW."

'Cause frankly, now it's just WoW where the players crunch the numbers instead of the computer.

I'm gonna see if I can get into a 3.5 game.... or better yet a ver. 1 game...

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Don't play one.

I had a friend back when I was a kid that kept an old version one rulebook around for laughs. Aside from the numerous grammatical errors, the rules were generally incoherent, contradictory, or just plain poorly thought out. Back then, you had something called the "alignment tongue" with which you could communicate "not only through verbal means, but through gestures and implication" with anyone of your alignment........


So say you're neutral........ you can talk to your horse, because it is to. (Back then, there was no good/evil, just Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic). Due to a very limited selection of weapons, and some class restrictions, wizards could only use daggers (but really, I'm out of spells, and the only weapon is that broadsword, I can just pick it up and hit him with it, but apparantly the wizard training psychologically conditions me to be unable to use any weapon other than a dagger), and because thieves couldn't use shields, every single thief player would give his guy a two handed sword the instant he got the opportunity.


Stick to 3.5 It's the most refined.

[Tezkat]

Heh. Old versions of D&D had lots of mechanics that seem really silly today. Like... you got experience points for acquiring gold. ("Treasure chest = Level up!") And there was an arbitrary level cap for nonhuman races. ("Congratulations, you've reached your racial level cap. We'll call you if we ever have a spare wish handy. Kthxbai.")


I started playing D&D with the Basic Set (red box... which, I believe, was the 4th version of the original D&D rules). My playgroup soon migrated to AD&D. I fell in love with the Oriental Adventures campaign setting. You could play shapeshifting furries!

I disliked the 2nd edition of AD&D. It sucked much of the rich flavour out of the campaign settings they'd built up in the previous decade, and some attempts to reintroduce it in later accessories were... um... not so well thought out. Or balanced. 2e lacked soul.

The 3rd edition got a lot of things right. It had a certain elegance, having distilled classes and mechanics down to the fundamentals so the system felt consistent across all character types. I liked how the flexible multiclassing mechanics finally allowed you to customize your PCs to how they looked in your mind's eye.

Even with the refinements in 3.5, however, the system mainly worked in a sweet spot in the middle levels. Attack and defence bonuses didn't scale well. Spellcasters sucked at low levels and then got ridiculously powerful. And let's not get started on level adjustment...

A number of other d20 games did a good job of addressing these issues. Star Wars turned out to be a much better implmentation of the d20 system than D&D. I also love what Steve Kenson did with his d20-inspired mechanics in Mutants and Masterminds, which lately has become my generic P&P system of choice.


What the 4th edition of D&D did with the normalization of stats and powers is a step in the right direction. Once the whole "WTF is this?" factor wore off, even the new power system started to make sense. The spells/day thing that D&D had been clinging to is a relic from the 70s that other game systems did away with years ago. I do, however, miss the variety and flexibility, and I don't particularly like how they handled rituals or multiclassing. And healing surges... gawd, that's just weird. Practical, but weird.

My biggest complaint about 4e is simply that it's no longer recognizable as the D&D we've come to know and love. Heck, it doesn't even feel like an RPG anymore--more like a D&D flavoured tactical miniatures game. That's fine if you're into that, but there's little support for interaction that doesn't involve hacking, slashing, and pushing mobs around a neat little grid.

[Reese Tora]

I just want to point out that point buy was standard in the 3rd edition rulebook and on(avaialble in a 2nd ed supplement, but that's netiher here nor there), and that every D&D tournament and official event I know of in 3.5 used either point buy or pre generated characters.

I started playing in 2nd edition, and I have to say the only edition transition that bothered me was for 4th; going to 3rd was fine, and I didn't mind too much going to 3.5, but 4th ruaching into the system and replaced a lot fot he guts with things that have little resemblance to their original copunterpart.

Probably the single thing I dislike the most is that everything is an attack against a single defense stat.  If I would have dodged a poison dart attack ability if it was attacking my armor class, then it shouldn't be able to hit me anyway due to my having a low fortitude save (I forget the proper 4th ed term)  suspemnsion of disbelief should not include suspension of internally consistent logic.
Yes, this happened to me.  No, I didn't die from it or at all that combat.

[Noone]

Even with the refinements in 3.5, however, the system mainly worked in a sweet spot in the middle levels. Attack and defence bonuses didn't scale well. Spellcasters sucked at low levels and then got ridiculously powerful. And let's not get started on level adjustment...

Some things on those points,
Firstly, spellcasters are not under-powered at low levels or become over-powered later. I know this from plenty of experience, a lot of it comes down to playing a spellcaster right. A lot of a tank's power is determined by how you build it, and with that, just go in and swing, usually there isn't a lot of tactical decisions you have to make other than when to use use/day abilities and which target to smack. Of course, with casters, it gets a lot more complicated, because you actively have to decide when to use spells, conserve spells, and most importantly, use spells in the right places. Of course, spellcasters being weak at low levels is more of a myth than anything, a wizard can get a DC of 17 in 3.5 on 1st level spells at level 1, and very few things have saves that high low level. Sleep, for example, can be a death sentence for a crowd of monsters, as can color spray if one positions himself correctly. A wizard or sorcerer with a high dexterity score can also hit fairly often with a light crossbow, which can deal decent damage in low level games. I wouldn't say they are ridiculously powerful at high levels too, though part of that of course depends on the monster designs used. Obviously, a creature with 400+ HP and a will save of 3 isn't going to pose much of a threat to a high level wizard, same actually goes for the other saves too, less so for reflex. And of course, I find that a lot of monster designers often don't give SR or enough to make a difference, a 13th level wizard casting on a creature with a spell resistance of 14 is going to break it every time, actually, even with 18 a caster can break it every time, assuming the caster takes the spell penetration feats. And of course, casters have to worry about conservation as well, using up all of ones highest level spells in one fight is usually overkill, and might leave them little to do in subsequent fights if they burn up all of their spells on a moment's notice. I find that the standard four-and-out setup does put casters in a position of being overpowered, largely because they can blast away with their most powerful spells with relative impunity. There is however, still the element of building and playing a caster correctly in place, and they can certainly be effective if they put good choices into their spell foci and spell selection. I wouldn't say that in a well designed setting though, that an arcane caster would be easily more powerful than everyone else in his group.
The AB/AC thing is a legitimate concern, I find that AC is highly dependant on gear, so if things are balanced correctly, and monsters are designed well, (again, having a creature with 14 AC and 38 AB is not generally good design.). Still, if the world is expertly made, this one can be worked around as well.

The spells/day thing that D&D had been clinging to is a relic from the 70s that other game systems did away with years ago.

It's an old system, but just because it's old doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. It was kept because the system worked well, and I find a lot of games in the computer gaming industry make this mistake as well, I cited HOMM 3 and 4 as an example previously, I can think of several other games that have made this flaw as well. Improvements can be made I'm sure, but it probably doesn't pay to throw the system out entirely.

[Drase]

I played 3.5 for a number of years, and I've been playing 4th edition the past few weeks... I've learned a few things about both.

While I love 3.5 more than 4, I enjoy both.  Both are fun if played correctly. I know players that will refuse to play one or the other, but they can both be fun, if you look at it right.  Mostly I think it depends on the group you're playing with.  If you didnt like playing 4th, then you might have just been playing with the wrong group. Yea, a group of 3.5 players who have never played 4th will probably not like it.  A 3.5 player who joins a 4th edition group might like it, if it's explained properly.

[Ryudo Lee]

I dunno.  My group has been playing 3/3.5 since they came out.  We read through the 4th ed materials and one of us attempted to run a 4th ed game.  He was not happy about a lot of things in it.  The general consensus in our group is that 4th ed isn't for us.

[Rakala]

I think it did a few things right and a few things wrong, so here's my list.

Rights
1. The wizard needs a couple of spells it can cast all the time so that at first level they aren't a hamper on the party. Maybe one, but two spells is a bit of a stretch.
2. Every member of a class shouldn't know all the skills available. I enjoyed that you can train in a limited number of skills but I will touch up on this again in the wrongs. It was also good limiting the number of skills total. Also passive perception is good.
3. Adding half your level to alot of the rolls and statistics works because the character then improves much more as they progress in level instead of just coming across better equipment. Honestly, how much does your character improve as they go? Nowhere near as much as they do now.
4. They added a few races people want to play without the level adjustment. Dragonborn was a nice, albeit unnecessary, touch. As well as the Warlock and Warlord classes were welcome additions.

Wrongs
1. Feats. All the "heroic tier" feats are just so worthless. There is one that the conditions for the bonus are you have to roll the highest initiative, it has to be a suprise round, and you must be a rogue or fighter. How often is this going to come into play? Not to mention Weapon Focus is now a feat I will never take because damage is not as important as attack.
2. Skills. Sure each person should know a few skills, but they did more right then they did wrong. First of all skill points made me feel like I was superior to somebody else in the skill than another person. Giving everybody +5 when trained in it takes away that advantage. Not to mention, where is the ability to tumble? That was a staple of all my characters in 3.0/3.5
3. The flexibility. Or rather lack of. Each class is very rigid in what they are. The fighter is always a damage absorber, completely losing the idea that a fighter is just somebody who specializes in some form of fighting. While I'm on it the bow seems to have become a tool useful only to the ranger. No other class can use a bow with their abilities making it very unuseful. Originally anybody could do anything if they put their mind to it. I always made a fighter when I wanted an archer instead of the ranger. What is with two weapon fighting anyways? I don't even know what it does.
4. The loss of some widely enjoyed classes. The bard, although ineffective in combat, was fun to roleplay. The barbarian always made things amusing and the monk brought a nice..... something.
5. The xp system. If you look they make you level up much faster. Level 2 at 1000 xp, level 3 at 2250, level 4 at 3500. First of all they are such odd numbers. Second they basically just admitted that the game is so weird that you need to level up quickly. Sure you get to being a bad mo-fo quicker but there's less of a sense of growth.

While the list of problems is more extensive I must admit playing 4.0 is better than not role playing at all by a large margin. I do have fun playing but the rules and creation is baffling. Given the choice I would have stuck with 3.5, however I play an RPGA sanctioned at home living session so 3.5 is not a choice.