4th Edition DnD: What it is and what it isn't.

[miltonyorkcastle]

This thread is for discussion of the new edition of the pen and paper role playing game Dungeons and Dragons. Please keep comments constructive and critical, rather than destructive and snide, or else I'll rip this thread from the world faster than you can say "swiss cheese" ten times.

I'll start with this:

4th edition doesn't try to deceive itself; it doesn't pretend to be an RPG that fits all styles of the "sword and sorcery" environment. 4th ed. DnD is an RPG in which the PCs are heroes (whether good or evil), the best of the best, from the get-go, thrust in a dark world full of magic and mystery, engaging in combat as dramatic as it is extraordinary. If you want to play in the "sword and sorcery" environment as a non-heroic (i.e. average joe, comic relief cripple, etc.) character or with less dramatic, perhaps grittier combat, then don't play 4th ed. DnD. That's not to say 4th ed. combat isn't deadly (good gods HP flies around like crazy in 4th ed.), or that you couldn't play a cripple (a cripple with devastating physical or magical attacks :p ) in 4th ed., it's just not what the game is about.

My (supposed) credentials: Since 3rd ed. DnD came out, I've played and GM'd extensively, and as soon as 4th ed. appeared, I did the same with it. I've also played PnP games with GURPS (a d6 system), Modern d20, RIFTS, White Wolf's World of Darkness (Vampire, Werewolf, etc. A d10 system), the HERO system, as well as various homegrown systems and who knows what else. Oh, and playing and GMing here. I consider myself something of a "munchkin" and good with numbers.

[Masterjack]

My son has ALL the DnD 4th ed books. He has DM'd a few adventures with me and a few of his friends. I keep asking him to do an adventure using Layo as the world, but he won't. Over all I have to say it's not bad and I miss my monk.

4th ed has gotten my wife and mother-in law into RPGs more (YES!). With the simpler combat system and set up of characters, they enjoy it much more then previous versions. I hope to get them to play Layo when the new version comes. (crosses fingers)

[lonnarin]

-In 4th edition, core classes as the barbarian, monk, sorcerer and DRUID were purposely not included so that they could be released in a second player's handbook.  At least other RPG table-top games TRY to release a single rule-book at the beginning; to purposely cut out major content like standard classes in order to sell more books is a level of dastardly that not even Milara would have the guff to do.  

-Gnomes have been removed to make room for Tieflings, Dragonborn and Eladrin, because everybody knows that gnomes are far more rare than people who mated with demons, dragons or celestial planewalkers!

-No matter what class you are, you can magically heal yourself multiple times per day by "surging".  

Nuff said.  When I flipped through it, the whole system felt to me more like a spin-off game than a sequel.  Kind of like how Warhammer had those dungeon delver boards and you got to play one guy instead of an army.

[miltonyorkcastle]

-Barbarian, monk, sorcerer, and druid were not core in 1st ed. DnD. (and I'm actually okay with multiple releases, but that's a different discussion)

-The lore has changed. Tieflings are not the result of mating with demons, but rather the result of a curse (a demonic curse, but no procreation was involved in the initial cursing). Eladrin are representative of the "High Elf" of 3rd ed. DnD (or what some thought high elves should be). Elves in 4th ed. are like a combo of wild/wood elves in 3rd. ed. Dragonborn, like the Tiefling, are not actually the result of mating with dragons, but are actually a race hand-made by celestial dragons. Gnomes were notoriously underplayed in 3rd. ed, whereas Tiefers and half-dragons were always in high demand. WotC admittedly catered to the mass player base with that lore change.

-Ahh, the surges. Invariably one of the more significant changes, but not one for the worse, I'd say, just different. Each character has a number of surges per day based on class and con modifier. Those surges are the maximum number of times you can be healed (short of a few rare daily cleric abilities), whether by yourself or another or even potions. Yes, you heard me right. If you have eight surges per day, you have ten healing potions, and you've already used all eight of your healing surges, those potions are useless to you until you rest long enough to recover your healing surges.

More to come, but for now I think that's a decent response to Ionnarin's thoughts.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

More to come, but for now I think that's a decent response to Ionnarin's thoughts.

L O N N A R I N. <3

I always loved gnomes in PnP.

[miltonyorkcastle]

L O N N A R I N. <3

Actually, I know. I've always thought of him as an Ion (eye-on, think electric charge) instead of a "lon," hence the intentional misspelling (sp?). Believe it or not, it's a compliment.

And I've played my share of gnomes (my favorite being a gnomish druid).

But now I've derailed my own thread. So, back on topic, it's true that every character, regardless of class or race, can "heal" themselves without use of divine magic or a potion. However, that "healing" is referred to as a second wind, can only be accessed once per "encounter" (think, once per combat), and can access a single healing surge. That means, assuming eight healing surges for the day as in my previous example, that you could, in fact, use a second wind eight times, in eight different encounters. A second wind is the only way to access a healing surge while in combat without a special ability (say, from a cleric or warlord) or a potion.

However, the reality is that you're lucky if you make it to four encounters with healing surges to spare. For you see, when I said your healing surges make up (very nearly) all of your healing for the day, I meant every darn little bit, even after the encounter is over. The only thing is that once the encounter is over, you don't need a potion or any ability, for that matter, to use healing surges. Yes, that means you can heal to full after a combat without potions or a cleric, but it also means that you can't go as far without taking a full day of rest.

For instance, you get into combat, get the tar beat out of you, use a second wind, get beat down some more, your cleric allows you to access another of your healing surges, still get beat down, but somehow manage to survive with two hitpoints left. You've already spent two healing surge, and then you find yourself spending four more after the combat is over to heal to full. Now you're down from eight to two surges. Another combat like that and you'll be wiped, no matter how awesome your cleric is.

[Script Wrecked]

-Barbarian, monk, sorcerer, and druid were not core in 1st ed. DnD. (and I'm actually okay with multiple releases, but that's a different discussion)

Okay, let me be the first one to get anal.

Druids and monks were in the PHB (1e); they were core classes in AD&D (1e).

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[miltonyorkcastle]

Well color me pink.... that's what I get for not looking at a 1st ed. PHB in seven years, not that I spent much time looking through it in the first place. I missed the boat on 1st and 2nd ed. My main point was, however, that classic DnD (in my experience and my apparently short-sighted understanding) revolved around a party including a mage-type (old guy with pointy hat), a thief-type (kender-like clepto), a fighter-type (sword and armor), and a cleric (religious holy guy)-type. Sure, monks are fighters and druids are clerics, but... not really...

*tries desperately to cover up his obvious flub*

[Dorganath]

-Barbarian, monk, sorcerer, and druid were not core in 1st ed. DnD. (and I'm actually okay with multiple releases, but that's a different discussion)

Incorrect.

The D&D 1st Ed. standard classes were:
Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Magic User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin and Monk.

Now technically, 1st Edition used the concept of "sub-classes", so in this hierarchy, Druid was a sub-class of Cleric, Paladin and Ranger were sub-classes of Fighter, Illusionist was a sub-class of Magic User (the Wizards of 3rd Edition), and Assassin was a sub-class of Thief.  See page 19 of the 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook, if you'd like the run-down.

Sub-classes or no, however, Druid and Monk were very much a part of 1st Edition, and they were further defined and extended in the supplement Unearthed Arcana.

Barbarian was, I believe, a product of 2nd Edition, or at the very least, an add-on to 1st Edition, and Sorcerer was a 3rd Edition thing.

I think Lonnarin's point was they purposefully withheld classes that had previously been "core" classes in order to sell add-on books, which is a marketing decision, not a content decision, and that generally doesn't sit well with people who are fans of the classes.

EDIT: Too slow...beaten by the wrecker of scripts. :p

[Script Wrecked]

The D&D 1st Ed. standard classes were:
Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Magic User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin and Monk.

With the Bard class as an optional fighter/druid/bard multi-class conglomeration at the back of the PHB.

Now technically, 1st Edition used the concept of "sub-classes", so in this hierarchy, Druid was a sub-class of Cleric, Paladin and Ranger were sub-classes of Fighter, Illusionist was a sub-class of Magic User (the Wizards of 3rd Edition), and Assassin was a sub-class of Thief.  See page 19 of the 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook, if you'd like the run-down.

*bonus points to Dorganath for "sub-class" reference*

Sub-classes or no, however, Druid and Monk were very much a part of 1st Edition, and they were further defined and extended in the supplement Unearthed Arcana.

Barbarian was, I believe, a product of 2nd Edition, or at the very least, an add-on to 1st Edition, and Sorcerer was a 3rd Edition thing.

Various D&D magazines released their own, unofficial versions of the Barbarian class, the desire for which no doubt being fueled by those landmark Schwarzenegger movies featuring Conan the Barbarian (naturally enough), before being released in the Unearthed Arcana.

I think Lonnarin's point was they purposefully withheld classes that had previously been "core" classes in order to sell add-on books, which is a marketing decision, not a content decision, and that generally doesn't sit well with people who are fans of the classes.

*shakes fist at the evil marketeers*

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Whenever someone has mentioned "First Edition" or "Second Edition" in this thread, I've felt obligated to remind everyone of the following fact:

D&D came out as Dungeons and Dragons, then Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, then Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition, then Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition (though "Advanced" was dropped from the name), then (Advanced) Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition, and now we are on (Advanced) Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.

The "First" and "Second" editions everyone's mentioned so far, as far as I can tell, are AD&D editions 1 and 2.

At least THAC0 is dead.

[Hellblazer]

*whistles innocently*

Hey don't hate us for what we get paid to do.. have those that pays us make money.... Beside.. without us.. you wouldn't have those beautiful adds and all and trailers and and and... well all that nifty collectibles and.... other stuffs.

[Faldred]

Disclaimer: I don't have the 4e books and I've only played briefly a few times, but I have followed 4e with decided interest, so I'm not completely uninformed.

The first and foremost thing to bear in mind is that D&D 4e is not D&D 3.x.  It simply isn't the same game.  On a superficial level, they share some commonality, and at the most basic mechanical level (roll a d20, add modifiers, and determine the result) they can claim to be equivalent, but that's pretty much it.

What's Good

4e is much better designed from a "balance" standpoint than 3.x was.  One could say it was "splatbook creep" that made 3.x broken, but honestly, some of the most "broken" stuff in 3.x is in the core PHB/DMG/MM.  (That's not to excuse montrousities like Complete Champion for their role in wedging the crack open into chasms...)

It looks to be much easier to learn and to play an effective character.  Multiclassing and prestige classes as we know it from 3.x is gone, and the value of each feat is considerably less than in 3.x.

The "experience point budget" method of encounters appears to be vastly superior to the 3.x challenge rating system, which really didn't work as well as it should have.  It is now possible to have a battle with a large number of weaker creatures and have it actually be a serious threat to the party.

The game appears to have a larger "sweet spot" in terms of levelling where the characters are balanced and effective, but not yet overpoweredly broken.  The 4e level 1-30 range is roughly equivalent to the 3.x 5-20 level range.

What's Bad (or at least, not so good)

4e is much better designed from a "balance" standpoint than 3.x was.  The drawback is that the "feel" of an arcane "striker" vs. a martial "striker" is considerably less pronounced than in 3.x (e.g., compare 4e Warlock and Rogue vs. 3.x Sorcerer and Rogue).  

Multiclassing and prestige classes as we know it from 3.x is gone, and the value of each feat is considerably less than in 3.x.  In 3.x, coming up with interesting character by mixing and matching classes, PrCs, and feats is almost a game in and of itself (the Character Optimization boards at Gleemax take this concept to the extreme).

The effects of magic are dramatically lessened.  While this plays into the balance that is designed in, it seems odd that the standard D&D tropes are subverted so that you could have an equally effective party regardless of powers sources used.  That is, as long as you have a "leader", a "controller", a "defender", and a "striker", it matters not at all that none of them may use an arcane or divine power source (e.g., they could all be martial).

Skill challenges are a neat idea (very much like conversation trees in NWN), but the fact that they had to tinker with it immediately after release tells me they didn't think it through properly.

The "sweet spot" mentioned above does remove the gritty danger of lower-level play in 4e.  There is no mechanical way to represent "farmer loses family in orc raid and takes up arms to fight the menace".  You can include that in a backstory, but at level 1 said farmer is already a "hero" who is set apart from most mortal men.

On the whole, the feel I get from 4e is that it is truly a game centered around tabletop tactical combat with minitures.  While 3.x can get like that, it really is impossible to play 4e without a tactical map, whereas it can be fudged away in 3.x.

[miltonyorkcastle]

it really is impossible to play 4e without a tactical map

I disagree, but hey, that's because I'm not usually all that strict about line of sight/perfect positioning yada-yada when I GM. My battles are hard enough as it is (since I never have and never will consider character levels when building a world and the encounters therein- my worlds are always a complete mix and it's up to the players to figure out what they're capapable of and what they're not), and so I usually give some leeway on the mechanical side of things as long as they think things through.

I agree that the skill challenges are still "in development." Really, it's an extension of what I commonly refer to now as the "Encounter System," which is 4th ed.

The effects of magic are dramatically lessened.

I found that 3rd. ed (combat) Magic either obliterated everything or was mostly useless. There never seemed to be much of an in-between. On the other hand, 4th ed. magic is never not useful in combat, and it's never an "I win" button (like so many of the save or die 3rd. ed spells). Now I'm not saying that one way is better than the other; they're just different, as I said earlier and Faldred repeated.

[cbnicholson]

I'll throw my 2 cents in here.  As a long time pen and paper roleplayer in D&D, I've got several friends who have judged at Gen Con.  They tell me 4th edition is in trouble and the game to watch is this: paizo.com - PathfinderTM  One of points they consistently bring up is that 4th edition products are sitting on the shelves and this game: Pathfinder *currently beta, to be officially released at Gen Con 09* can't be kept on the shelves.

At the risk of sounding uninformed, I'm also told that Pathfinder is "fix" for what's wrong with 3.5, hence its popularity.  

One of the reasons they like it is the feeling that Wizards of the Coast has lost sight of what gamers really want and are far too focused on making the almighty dollar. In pursuing this goal the game in 4th edition has been 'dumbed down' for a video game obsessed generation.   Its a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly.

[miltonyorkcastle]

Huh. Pathfinder looks interesting. I'll have to sit down with some of my buds and have a pass at it.

However, I actually disagree with

4th edition has been 'dumbed down' for a video game obsessed generation

, believe it or not. 4th edition is not any easier or harder to play than 3rd edition (4th edition will eventually have all the obscure and crazy additions 3rd ed did), once you've made characters. Creating a character in 3rd ed, especially if you invest in other source material, can take ages, hours upon hours, and then you still might find that what you created doesn't really accomplish what you wanted to accomplish, and you have to start all over because you can't change the innate abilities of the classes. In 4th ed, character creation is much smoother, faster, and if your character doesn't work the way you want it to, switch out your "powers" or just spend the ten minutes it takes to make a new character.

EDIT: This assumes you make characters that start above 1st level.

EDIT EDIT: The more I look over Pathfinder the more I feel like I'm in another Windows (Wizards)/Linux (Pathfinder) debate. Doh. I usually argue for Linux.... 0.o

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

On the whole, the feel I get from 4e is that it is truly a game centered around tabletop tactical combat with minitures.  While 3.x can get like that, it really is impossible to play 4e without a tactical map, whereas it can be fudged away in 3.x.

A huge number of Feylock and Warlord abilities (just to name the ones I'm most familiar with) rely heavily on the concept of Sliding the enemy - often past characters who can attack a Sliding enemy, or into AoEs that damage on a given initiative count (or when entering or leaving, etc).

In my experience of playing 4e combat, it does rely -heavily- on mapped combat. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but not something many gamers are fond of.

[miltonyorkcastle]

*reads a raise dead scroll*

It made me cry blood.

Over a year of 4th ed. DnD played, and I am ever reminded that it's not the system that makes the RP experience, it's the GM and players. I've played with groups that treat the game more like Final Fantasy Tactics on a tabletop, and you just go from combat to combat, trying to make each combat more complex, and that's about all the game was.... fun for a while, but not really much in the way of story, world creation, RP.... and then I've played with groups that developed interesting characters, created an engaging world, and the mechanics of 4th ed was just an afterthought that allowed us to resolve combat and fill out character sheets faster than we did in 3rd ed. I've played with groups that have no idea how to approach 4th ed without mini's and a grid, and other groups that pull out the grid for the big battles, but mostly let the "push, pull, slide, shift" aspects of the 4th ed powers just ride for average battles.

In short, it's exactly like when I played 3rd/3.5. Some players were more concerned with the "letter of the law" as far as system mechanics went, and others were more concerned with the story and characters using the system mechanics to help adjucate more complicated actions (such as combat), but adjusting and ignoring book rules as necessary to allow clean and fun "flow" of the story.

In my opinion, a system should be used to facilitate but not adjucate gameplay (where gameplay in this instance is character and story development). Gameplay is in control of players and GM (though some GMs like to pretend they have all the power in their games :p), and they can therefore determine whether they let rules from a book determine exactly how things will happen, or if they will use the book as a guide and use their own intelligence/wisdom/creativity to fill in the rest (since no matter which system you use it will invariably fail to adress all the possible scenarios in a satisfactory way).

All that said, I still like 4th ed, and I still like 3rd ed. They both have their own quirks, they handle combat a bit differently, but in the end, they're both designed to facilitate a medieval, heroic, sword and sorcery, role-played story. I think they both do a decent job. But then again, I think that of practically all PnP systems I've played, with the noted exception of the "Hero" system (a system designed for super-hero combat that felt on par with DragonBall Z in terms of single fight duration).

[Falonthas]

in actuality from a perspective of those who played from the boxes into 1st and 2nd ed, 3ed 3.5 and 4.0 are all the dumbed down versions to go for mass sales

you learned the game with dnd in the boxes, then you moved to advanced 1st and 2nd
yes i know thac0 was a pain in the behind, but you didnt have every tom  and jane running around  playing either. people that played had friends that played and thats how they learned
 3.0 and 3.5 were made to support the online masses. those of us who played the gold boxes by SSI( pool of radiance, curse of the azure bonds, secret of the silver blades, and pool of darkness) were set with 2nd and they sold like hotcakes. but again not for the multiplayer aspect

even though we love nwn, we have those of us who have been playing long before neverwinter was more then a simple mark on the map you had on the wall from your grey boxed set of faerun

i read about 4th, checked some of it out right before it launched, and personally im disgusted with the way wotc has made a game i have loved since middle school into another attempt at pokemon and magic
 gygax rolls in his grave.
 4th is not DnD in my opinion, its simply a money guzzler that didnt read the book before it was marked with a name

my two paws worth

[miltonyorkcastle]

4th is not DnD in my opinion, its simply a money guzzler that didnt read the book before it was marked with a name

Play the system for six months and then decide.