4th Ed D&D

[Typhonis 1]

I believe sneak attack as Hotfot is describing it is Alatir of Assasins Creed driving that thin blade he has hidden on his left arm into the body of the target without said target realising he is targetted.

[SirNitram]

Sneak attacks are hits to vitals. There's a reason golems didn't suffer them: They have no vitals. It is not 'Whee I get uber-damage constantly'. It is 'In this position I can nail a vital with this rapier'.

Edit: I suck. But I can edit!

[Mr Bean]

Sneak attacks are hits to vitals. There's a reason golems didn't suffer them: They have no vitals. It is not 'Whee I get uber-damage constantly'. It is 'In this position I can nail a vital with this rapier'.

Edit: I suck. But I can edit!

Which FYI I hate because, "go for the knees!" does not work against so many D&D monsters. Which is why I've always had to house-rule in a damage location system.

Is that so much to ask what? Thirty years now? Other games have done it and done it semi-well? Why must I be forced to chose between trying(And because of the minuses) to preform non-lethal attacks and simply try to kneecap some-one.

You used to have that option with called shots but they are gone. Now all I can do are center mass-hits correct?

[xammer99]

I reserved posting on this until I'd actually gotten the PHB and started reading it. So...now that that's done, my disappointment in this new system is quite thorough.

Overview: They turned D&D into a table top video game. I'm an avid player of WoW and this just screams World of Warcraft.

Flavor: I find the game just very... bland. With the previous editions of D&D, and most other RPGs, I could get a feel of the flavor. But with this one I can't, it's just so... blah.

High points: There are some aspects I do like. For instance the ritual magic is pretty cool and has some possibilities. Further, the Ranger class is also a bit interesting. The combat system "feels" a bit more streamlined, though the rule for every attack may put paid to that once I actually play it. The addition of the Eldarin & the "Feywild" also seems pretty cool.

Low points: I really don't care for the new mechanics of the classes and how everything has become so totally abstract. Instead of "feet" everything is now in boxes. Yes, it equates to the same thing, but it translate to stripping another layer of flavor from it all. The inclusion of demon- & dragon-oid PC races is just... not for me.

Now, all this must be taken with the acknowledgment that I'm a mid 30's gamer whose been playin for over 20 years. So what is right for me isn't right for others, and vice versus. So there isn't any question that 4e is not for me. Glad I only burned the $30 on the PHB and not the whole set.

Now if Paizo will just get it in gear and release Pathfinder I'll be happy.

[Anguirus]

I would recommend at least trying one game of 4e. It's really not for some people, but I've found that pretty diverse types of players (my 2e grognard father, my 12 year old brother who's hardly played, my hardcore 3e gamer friends) are sold on it once they play a game.

Flavor can be changed, options can be added, but the important thing--the core combat system--is an absolute joy to play or run. I was thinking I'd hold off on buying for a bit but running the preview adventure and playing in a game last night pretty much sold me on it.

[SirNitram]

Honestly, reading a book and playing a session are not even close to the same for reviewing. Never were.

And frankly, I'm annoyed by the 'I'm just a 30 something whose been playing for 20..' stuff, and it's many variations. I've met enough who have the same background who loved that it got back to the simplicity and directness of the original box to know it's a bullshit excuse, just a means to try and appear superior and 'learned'.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I played it last night. I'm a 1st Level Dragonborn Warlord named Gorn. It was an absolute blast. The mechanics are smoother than 3.5 and 1st level is a hell of a lot more survivable. These are all good things. Now I'll just need to give the game some time to see how everything ends up panning out. So far, I give it 9/10.


Funny was when I got over to the game shop I do my D&D game at and my DM was running the demo for the shop. The mission had gone from "Save the Children!" to "We're not evil, we're just greedy. You guys are the evil ones". Long story short: Party cohesion went bye-bye, the fighters got greedy, and ended up turning the kids to their side. The remaining portion of the party decided to ambush and kill them. It was hilarious. One of the fighter's did his daily and critted. Damn that was funny.

[White Haven]

Having snagged myself a copy of the book, I've got some thoughts.

*Maimed alignment system with missing alignments: Sigh. There wasn't a damned thing wrong with the old one; certainly not something that's fixed by hacking parts off of it.

*Class powers written class-by-class: Interesting choice for Wizards, in that they can't just say 'Oh, and gets Wizard spells' on a future class release. Might indicate that they're trying to drop back down to fewer, better-written classes, which is a very good thing.

*Theme: I'll wait til I see some FR source before I say much on that; generic-rulebook material isn't something I'd expect to be very relevant to it. That said, get your grubby mitts OFF Planescape!

*Warlords: Anyone else feel this is a little bit odd in the base class set? We've got all the standard archetypes, one caster, one healer, one archer, one sneaky, one swordy...and Warlord, who's More Swordy?

More to come as I've more time to peruse.

[Hotfoot]

Having snagged myself a copy of the book, I've got some thoughts.

*Maimed alignment system with missing alignments: Sigh. There wasn't a damned thing wrong with the old one; certainly not something that's fixed by hacking parts off of it.

Nothing wrong with the alignment system? Clearly you never played a game with someone who was True or Chaotic Neutral. "See! It says I can do whatever I want!" The old alignments more often pigeonholed characters into specific actions.

Having the alignments be much more generalized makes them better guidelines than constraints on how your character is played. Frankly, I was hoping that they would do away with alignments entirely in this edition, because they are an artifact with little actual use outside of lame story-breaking stuff (Hey, let's do detect evil on everyone and find out who the bad guy is).

What's more, it's even more possible now to pit good characters against each other, and to have an antagonist who is good or lawful good who is working against the party for legitimate reasons because the methods they choose to use are different.

*Warlords: Anyone else feel this is a little bit odd in the base class set? We've got all the standard archetypes, one caster, one healer, one archer, one sneaky, one swordy...and Warlord, who's More Swordy?

You apparently haven't read it over that well. The Warlord is effectively replacing the Bard as the core "Group Leader/team buffer". Now, instead of some weeny guy who plays a lute, it's a guy who leads the team into combat shouting orders and war cries. Instead of being horribly split between the roles of all four other major classes (caster/healer/rogue/fighter) like the bard was, the Warlord has more focus (Buff/Melee). The best match for it would be the Captain class from LOTRO.

[Imperial Overlord]

We had our first session this weekend. I'm not a fan of the increased abstraction of the system, but the resulting simplicity is nice. After during a bit of post play analysis the thing that shouts out to me is "know your character." With two at will, a encounter, and a daily power from you class, class and racial abilities, and the basic options there's a lot of options for a rookie player. The difference in performance between those who knew their character and those who didn't was very noticeable.

HINT: My beloved players, those of you who don't have your shit together had better get it together by about mid-way through next session or Umbras might be making one of his infamous "what players are worth of saving" decisions.

[consequences]

Having now skimmed the PHB, I think I'll just say that it has failed to grab my attention and consequently gaming urges by the testicles, and leave it at that.

There's mechanics I like, there's mechanics I dislike. But much like the restarted WoD, it's failed to inspire the 'ooh, when's the next supplement coming out, better pre-order it' instinct.

The fact that I have more than a little emotional investment in the artificer I'm running in my current group probably has something to do with it. Let's face it, coming to the realization that you can't even remotely approximate your current character, is just a bit of a turn-off.

[CDiehl]

The Warlord is effectively replacing the Bard as the core "Group Leader/team buffer". Now, instead of some weeny guy who plays a lute, it's a guy who leads the team into combat shouting orders and war cries.

Well, now I'm sold. This means I can convert my LARP character to D&D.

[Covenant]

Having now skimmed the PHB, I think I'll just say that it has failed to grab my attention and consequently gaming urges by the testicles, and leave it at that.

There's mechanics I like, there's mechanics I dislike. But much like the restarted WoD, it's failed to inspire the 'ooh, when's the next supplement coming out, better pre-order it' instinct.

The fact that I have more than a little emotional investment in the artificer I'm running in my current group probably has something to do with it. Let's face it, coming to the realization that you can't even remotely approximate your current character, is just a bit of a turn-off.

That's hardly suprising. Artificers are just one class from a single campaign setting, it's not like they're anywhere near a core class, and even Barbarians, Druids and Monks need to wait a bit longer to get their 4e class treatments. This seems to be a running problem though, and what people are going to have to do is just finish their 3.5e games unchanged, and then make new guys later in 4e without trying to replicate the same things again. Trying to transition one to the other seems like an utter impossibility, especially since the entire feel of the system is different, but I think it's going to be best for the longterm.

[Nephtys]

Having now skimmed the PHB, I think I'll just say that it has failed to grab my attention and consequently gaming urges by the testicles, and leave it at that.

There's mechanics I like, there's mechanics I dislike. But much like the restarted WoD, it's failed to inspire the 'ooh, when's the next supplement coming out, better pre-order it' instinct.

The fact that I have more than a little emotional investment in the artificer I'm running in my current group probably has something to do with it. Let's face it, coming to the realization that you can't even remotely approximate your current character, is just a bit of a turn-off.

That's hardly suprising. Artificers are just one class from a single campaign setting, it's not like they're anywhere near a core class, and even Barbarians, Druids and Monks need to wait a bit longer to get their 4e class treatments. This seems to be a running problem though, and what people are going to have to do is just finish their 3.5e games unchanged, and then make new guys later in 4e without trying to replicate the same things again. Trying to transition one to the other seems like an utter impossibility, especially since the entire feel of the system is different, but I think it's going to be best for the longterm.

Artificers rule! Nothing like breaking out the Lumiferious Aether Exciter and burning down a few orcs while riding by on your coal-fired Mechanized Equestrian Conveyance.

...back to topic. Hrm. I dunno how I'm going to keep my Artificer going now with 4th Ed without a lot of custom rules.

[SirNitram]

While far, far from ideal, until Eberron's book comes out, one could always homebrew an artificer. The power system strikes me as pretty appropriate for them: At-wills are reliable gadgets(Repeater crossbows, etc), encounters are things that take a few minutes to prep(Simple grenade?), dailies are really unreliable stuff. The biggest leap is their 'I'm so uber at magic items' stuff. Their stuff was mostly buffing, so the Cleric or Warlord would be a good measuring stick.

It's better than waiting.

[Tiriol]

I have now had the chance to skim through the Player's Handbook and I'll buy the Dungeon Master's Guide later today. These are my thoughts on the subject.

The mechanics are now more streamlined and at quick glance easier to learn (an important thing when trying to teach new players). While the new powers system was an odd one (and DID remind me of WoW and its ilk, or more precisely of what I've heard of them, both in good and bad) when compared to 3rd Edition, I got used to it very quickly and I can appreciate how it balances the classes when everyone has the same amount of options and fairly equal amount of strength game-wise.

The system resembles the new Star Wars Saga rules, although they do have their differences. Some might dislike this, but personally I'm fond of the simplistic and functional approach of Saga Edition and 4th Edition rules are a good way to bring that say approach to D&D. The classes are balanced against each other and all have their own options; arcane and divine spellcasters will no longer simply overpower the non-spellcasting classes. This will be a sore point for some who'd like to see the wizard be the end-of-all demigod of might when compared to fighter, but I like it. It might need some time to get used to the idea of no longer having 9 levels of spells (or 10, if you count 0-level spells) but let's not fool ourselves: that, too, was an arbitary and purely mechanical division. And since the spells are now spellcasters' powers, there isn't that huge difference between how a wizard works and how a paladin works in game mechanics.

Ritual spellcasting is a nice and cool idea. Many spells screamed in 3rd Edition "Ritual!", but were still "just" spells (contact other plane; legend lore; planar binding; etc). Now we have distinct mechanism for them.

Personally I miss the summoning, necromantic animation and charm/domination spells, but I can see why they were removed. It does bring some WoW/EverQuest elements into D&D, but I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. It brings change to game which has been filled with sacred cows (Vancian magic system, anyone?). On the subject of magic, I'm pleased that they didn't adapt spell point system; it is very hard to make it balanced and it often results in situations where a notable part of the game, when spellcasters are concerned, to be spent on math.

The reliance on miniatures bugs me. I do not intend to buy them and I don't feel compelled to do so, but the tactics are designed with them in mind.

Over all, I'm pleased with the initial appearance of the game. I have not yet played and tested in practice, but I have high hopes for it. However, I cannot judge the entire new system until DMG and MM have been read (and put to use).

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

The reliance on miniatures bugs me. I do not intend to buy them and I don't feel compelled to do so, but the tactics are designed with them in mind.

Is it that you don't like having to purchase them or that you don't like having to play on a grid? Because if it's just the former, folded paper and markers should be enough to work, as well as any odds and ends smaller than 1 inch by 1 inch (or larger, for larger creatures). That's what my group did for combat in 3.5.

[SirNitram]

So many games were helped along by grid paper and coins as 'miniatures' I cannot actually fault Wizards for this.

[Covenant]

I think it's a smart decision--you don't need to buy the minis, but what it does do is help people visualize. You can use a Cup for a dragon or eschew the grid entirely in favor of whatever other system you want, but the flexibility is there. If someone just doesn't understand what the hell the battle area looks like, throwing some coins onto a piece of Grid Paper is a good way to say "He's over here," and for previously irksome things like movement to be at least a lot more clear.

It also allows for the whole movement minigame, where you shove people around, command areas, exchange spots and so on that before was only doable with "feet" and measurements. I think it makes the game a lot deeper. Sure, it makes it more like Final Fantasy Tactics or Disgaea, but it's exactly what the game needed to help out melee types. I feel like Wizards translated the most poorly from 3.5e to 4e, losing a lot of that unique punch that made them so powerful and unusual, but they're finally balanced and that's a great thing.

[Stark]

So many games were helped along by grid paper and coins as 'miniatures' I cannot actually fault Wizards for this.

Even if you're scribbling on paper or using coins or whatever, it removes a lot of the weasel-room from everything - not just combat, but anything spatial. The old 'no no I was over here' excuse is instantly invalidated, which is fantastic.

Playing without any physical representation requires a great deal of trust in the other players, which isn't usually warranted.