|
|
Post by shasodnarb on Jun 28, 2010 0:14:03 GMT -5
10 being pure brilliance, 5 being undeniably average, 1 being downright painful to play...
( and post why, if you like )
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jun 28, 2010 5:54:30 GMT -5
....actually I've been playing 4th since it came out... and was very very reluctant to do so.... hated the changes... I've been playing pretty much consistently since the blue box.... and many years of that was weekly gaming... So I had a lot of history to get through... I've completely boycotted editions before that I thought were unwieldy and broken mechanics wise (much of what 2nd edition turned into actually) and went back to playing 1st ed for years.... So I was just about ready to say I wasn't switching... i mean I had boxes and boxes of books still that were now technically useless other than fluff / inspiration.... then I tried it... and wasn't sold either... found the changes too sweeping, and the cards a little strange.... then I kept playing it and I can say with all confidence that this system is.... dare I say it... balanced, fun and actually WORKS... the game mechanics work to make a very fluid and action based game... it took a bit to wrap my head around and get used to (I'm still mixing up rules from time to time... that's what happens when you have 20+ years of rules in your brain I guess  ) I didn't want to like it... I said it wouldn't work.... I dug my heels in... And I was totally wrong... It's really good.... (but no one gets a 10).... |
|
|
|
Post by LizardTau on Jun 28, 2010 9:19:20 GMT -5
Me and some friends went to play 3.5 were really excited and after 4 times getting together we finally got all our characters done and then we never ended up getting together again. In forth it took me maybe 2 minutes to make my character. After playing with the creater for a while but that was fun. Its so easy to get into. I assume thats what they were going for. I can see why some people might not like the skill checks part since its a lot more generalized but i always assumed that what house rules were for. If you don't like a part change it.
|
|
|
|
Post by qwertywraith on Jun 28, 2010 15:32:57 GMT -5
4th ed is great. 8/10. It's simple and fun. You don't need complex mechanics to make a game fun. Too many game systems get bogged down with minutia, and 4th stays away from it. If you want minutia, you can add it any way you want.
What I like most is how plug-and-play it is. Don't like a daily power? Make up a new one. Need an encounter? Add up some monster XP and you have one (actually having clear rules about designing encounters: awesome). For DMs, the clarity of the rules makes them easy to manipulate. I can see it would be very easy to make balanced custom PC classes and races (which I hope will be clearly delineated in a future release).
If anything I don't like it's the class-creep that seems to be going on with the new player's handbooks and all the additional books that add more and more baggage onto the character classes. I can see where it's going, and that could get unwieldy far too fast, but if you're willing to operate within restrictions the system can be great. Also Skill Challenges are wonky if not handled right, but I can see some simple house rule fixes.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesanityassassin on Jun 29, 2010 0:07:48 GMT -5
Well, I can say I agree with Shannon in that I've been extremely reluctant to pick up the game. That said, I didn't take the leap he did, and STILL have yet to play 4th. I at least have the PHB at this point, and I must say I am impressed at how simple and streamlined it all is. Plug and play indeed.
I guess I was just frustrated as I DID stumble through the mud in 3.5 and figure out how to make good, workable characters who were strong without being broken, but I'll be the first to admit that the system had a LOT of flaws and was very daunting to get involved with. Hopefully I can actually get some 4th ed gaming in at some point. Because the core of it is still in character role-playing to me, and so long as that is strong, the dice system doesn't mean that much to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jun 29, 2010 5:43:57 GMT -5
....yeah but at least you got some poor saps' 3.5 stuff still if you don't take the leap!
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by justice7ca on Jul 3, 2010 14:11:57 GMT -5
I played 2nd Edition years and years ago, but recently got heavily into 4th. I'm really enjoying it, the simplicity of the rules. I agree, that the weak point is the skill challenges. Some house rules need to lock this down, and maybe the D&D community itself will come up with some standardized way of making skill challenges slightly more interesting.
I like the idea but the execution of them is pretty poor. Almost always ends in success.
I have availability in my group that plays in Napanee; should anyone be looking to play some DnD. Right now the characters are 4th Level and going strong.
We run Bi-Weekly Saturday nights. (Next sat would be game, but i think Warhammer is taking precedent, not sure).
|
|
|
|
Post by shasodnarb on Jul 7, 2010 23:43:41 GMT -5
I love the elegant combat and ease of character creation in this sytem. It was very quick to learn and it's always relatively simple to jump into a new game.
Having said that, the game mechanics don't lend itself to a lot of combat depth without the use of house rules. The classes have lost a lot of their unique independent utility. Moreover, the power of magic has been massively downgraded from previous editions. Due to small effect ranges and diameters, magic simply isn't awe-inspiring anymore.
Still, I enjoy the system as a whole because it's very easy to adjudicate as a GM. It's just not D&D anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mythweaver on Jul 11, 2010 18:53:13 GMT -5
I have to agree with D'Narb,
The system makes for decent stroy telling and smooth conbat. Magic definately isn't as grand as it once was, in fact I used to enjoy playing wielders of the arcane before but think it's a waste of time and energy now.
Still, roleplaying will always be fun, as long as there is room for house rules and RAW is merely a guide line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 11, 2010 20:00:36 GMT -5
...you obviously haven't seen a tooled up sorcerer in action.... in today's game, our wild sorcerer hit two enemies for 70+ damage each, another 3 for half damage (because he missed them), then action pointed, did another 60+ damage against another enemy, bounced it to another... rolled a 1 and knocked himself prone and stunned... it was awesome  the ability to stack feats which combine together in interesting ways (white lotus feats for example) are completely insane for spellcasters.... |
|
|
|
Post by shasodnarb on Jul 11, 2010 20:15:25 GMT -5
Aye, I agree lots of things can do epic damage but for me, when the new edition drastically reduced ranges and radii, the magic lost its... magic. Range 10 is moderate in this new edition but that's only 50 feet!
When designing the new edition, it seems that they chose to focus far too much on supporting their virtual tabletop idea, thereby fitting the game's mechanics to dungeon settings. When the rules are applied out-of-doors, they become ridiculous.
Bottom line: the rules didn't have to be stupid just because they were simple.
( Btw, where did that nifty character image generator go? I was looking forward to that. )
|
|
|
|
Post by johnchurchill on Aug 24, 2010 22:48:52 GMT -5
Pure crap. They've dumbed down the rules to cater to the lowest common denominator. Simultaneously, they've somehow also managed to slow down the game too. Quite a feat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Keijukainen & Leijona on Oct 17, 2010 21:24:25 GMT -5
Honestly, I agree that the new rules set doesn't cater to out-of-doors settings very well. Take weapon ranges, for example, in particular something like a longbow, and compare the listed range to its counterpart in real life. The discrepancy is huge. Certainly, the developers know this as well. To my mind, this means that the game was meant to cater to a far different crowd than its more experienced gamers. This didn't impress me.
|
|
)
