Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So do people play this, is it any good or what. What I would be interested in is something like the core rules with the best of all the extra classes and things. Is it any good or is it just stupid. You can surge or something now, right.

I'm assuming you mean 4th edition.

Short answer: Its extremely fun, but its not really "D&D"

Long answer: I was skeptical at first, having played older versions. The new rules looked kinda bizzare and it looked like a tactical game instead of an RPG. I broke down and both played and ran it, and I loved it.

For a GM, its much easier to manage. You don't have to mess with CRs and try to get an encounter just right, as there is an "Encounter Level" instead. As long as the EL matches the level of the players, you should be good to go.
For a player, I have to admit, there is a bit less customization. Classes are more strict, in that paladins will be good at this, and wizards will be good at that, and you can't really branch out without multiclassing. You still get feats and skills and you get to choose your powers but its all just different ways to do the same thing. It makes up for this by having LOTS of classes. The 3rd players handbook just came out a while ago with even more.
Where the game really shines is combat, its very smooth and flows well, but at the same time its very tactical, and the players really need to work together to succeed.

Its something you have to play before you judge. It really is a fun game, but it doesn't feel like D&D. Maybe its just me. If it doesn't do it for you, look into Pathfinder. Its been called "D&D 3.7", the best parts of 3rd and 4th edition combined.

The jury is still out on this one for me. I've played since AD&D, and yes, it's quite different from previous editions. But it is still D&D. And it's fun but different.

A short answer: It's a MMRPG.

But you should try it, you might like it! There is a D&D Worldwide Gameday this Saturday. Go check out your FLGS and see if they are doing something. It's a great way to try out the new edition.

If you want specifics, ask, I'd be happy to give you some details on the differences between 3rd and 4th edition.

I've been playing 4E for a while now (as a GM), after a little experience with earlier edititions, and I really like it for the most part. 4th Edtion especially is very much about making player characters feel very heroic and larger than life. Everyone has powers that feel very dramatic, combat is about working together, and (as you mentioned above) all characters have some capacity to heal themselves using what are called "Healing Surges". These can be kicked off by the abilities of classes like the cleric, or can be used out of combat to bring a character back to full strength. In addition to this, things like a newly implemented action point system keep things moving forward, rather than forcing the party to go back to town and rest up after every fight. There's a pretty wide variety of classes available, with Players Handbook 3 coming out later this month.

Some people would say that the roleplaying side of things has been cut down a little too much, but in my experience it is what you make of it. I ran the first session of a new campaign last weekend that had virutally no combat. Instead the players spent time investigating the plots taking place in the village they had started in, and though it was a little slow at times they seemed to enjoy it.

If it sounds like something you might like, the only way to find out is to play. I haven't attended any of the game days thus far, but have heard good things. Friends can also be recruited of course, and if you're interested WOTC has an introductory adventure of sorts availible here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx

Always happy to help, could certainly add my two cents on any other questions you might have.

So D&D is morphing more and more into a pencil & paper version of World of Warcraft?

Breotan wrote:So D&D is morphing more and more into a pencil & paper version of World of Warcraft?

Well, there are certainly similarities. 4E combat is very tactical, with powers that can be used at different times and in different ways. Classes can be said to belong to groups that mirror the tank/healing/DPS of an MMO, but also have some flexibility within this framework. Combat is also pretty focused on movement and positioning, especially when more interesting terrain is involved. Personally I think that this has really help to address the issues associated with the "stand in a line and wail on each other" style of combat which was a bit more prevalent before.

It is still D&D, of course, which means that there's a lot of other stuff besides, but there are parts of the game that where clearly inspired by video games and possibly by wargaming as well.

I think it's better balanced and easier to run than 3.5. Probably the only bad thing about it is that you can't make a PC who is bad at combat. But I don't see that as an incredibly bad thing, just make it clear to the players that this is a high fantasy style game. I think it does sword and sorcery really well, which is D'n'D to me.

I have to say I don't like a lot of the new art and some of the flavour text for powers, but the underlying system is good enough to make up for it and then some.

I have always wanted, and never have run/ played in a really EPIC D&D campaign. Me and some buddies started Undermountain way back when but only played it a couple days, mostly because it just too hard. You know that 3rd ed book with the dragons, level 30+, I have always wanted to play that.

I think D&D knowing they are competing with World of Warcraft is smart, because honestly if you are looking for real fun competitive-oriented D&D 2/3 of the time, which D&D is, time-consuming you are best off looking at online games anyway.

I think for the sort of campaign you're talking about, it's better. 3.5 had a real problem past a certain level, as everything could do insane damage but couldn't take any in return.
In my old Iron Kingdom's Monty Haul kill the monsters get the loot game, my group killed the Tarrasque in 4 turns. At level 14.
I was a sad GM.
At that point, I changed over to 4th, and it worked much better, and didn't effect the roleplaying at all. Haven't run a heavily investigative or political game in it yet, but for those sorts of games system is less important.

Political/ etc would be interesting so long as it was EPIC. I mean it could be 2/3 political/ etc and still have lots of swords and sorcery.

I am going to have to pick up the 4th ed books, then. Of course there are more every day, right.

I have played D&D (almost exclusively as a DM) for almost 16 years and I have to say that, all around, 4E is my favorite.

I found that in 2E, everything was difficult about the system (granted, I was 13 at the time). The combat was hard to run, the characters had level caps, certain races could only be certain classes, etc. My friends and I played through The Temple of Elemental Evil (it was a blast!), but it took forever!

Then, around my senior year of high school, 3E came out. I played the crap out of 3E and 3.5. I thought that they did combat great, I really liked the feats/skills, the multiclassing. I really thought it was a great system. However, as other posters have mentioned, at some point the characters just got too strong. I can remember playing a game where we were close to epic level (I think 17 or 18), and there was an elf knight in our group who had items to give him 10 attacks a round! He could literally destroy great wyrm dragons in one round. It just became unfun.

Now, 4E is on the market. I will say that a lot of my gaming buddies were hesitant about it first (and some still are), but I find in my experience with the system that it is better balanced all around. Someone else posted that the characters feel heroic, I fully agree with that statement. If you've played 3.X D&D, a 1st lvl 4E character feels like a 3rd level 3.X character. My experience with 4E is kinda limited though. My party is only now half-way to level 6, but I haven't once felt like they were either over or underpowered for an encounter.

It also seems like WotC is taking much better care of 4E. I've noticed a lot of erratas on their website concerning different items or rules that seem to be OP, and they fix them.

In the end, 4E is still D&D. The RPG elements only aren't there if you don't want them to be. I would say that my only gripe is that it seems like you really have to optimize your character. My fiancee is playing a half-elf rogue, and she struggles in combat because half-elves don't get a Dex bonus. However, she really shines in skill challenges, so it kinda makes up for it.

I hope you decide to pick up some of the books and look through them.

I spent the last three years before 4E's release playing 3.5 on a weekly or biweekly schedule and played a smattering of AD&D2E years before. I have to agree with zatchmo that 4E is better than both from a DM's perspective. After running 4E you realize how stupidly hard it can be to run 3.5 and how 3.5 lets characters run amok--especially in relatively uncreative mechanical ways with items or min/maxing. 4E meets the min/maxers head-on (and that is really the only way D&D has emulated WoW rather than the other way around) and expects every player to min/max their build. Self-crippling for RP's sake can happen in 4E but you had better be very committed to that RP. The woman in my group who always played a caster really hated 4E. I think it's because magic is not so special anymore: you're consistently a part of the team rather than showing up the rest of the team. One problem with 4E that I couldn't figure out is how to work their ELs with a group of less than four to six PCs. Since everything is based on non-sliding XP quotas, it's hard to build an interesting encounter that a smaller party can handle. For example, I ran a three PC group through Keep on the Shadowfell, mistakenly divvying out XP without dividing by three. So by the time they faced the dragon at the end they were actually two levels higher than they should have been and still only barely made it (and even then, it took soft rolling on my part). At the end of the day, 4E is a great product line (even though the packaging--in terms of page layout, art, flavor, etc--is pretty insipid) but I think it only comes into its own when you have at least four to six PCs. To be fair, the same could be said of 3.5 but I think the possible encounters that a three PC group can handle in 3.5 are more varied than what they can handle in 4E.

It's an excellent combat system, no questions there, but I wouldn't call 4th ed an RPG.

4th edition eliminates some of the fun that previous editions had, namely the unintended consequences of bringing in different source materials for characters and monsters to create truly horrific and powerful characters or monsters that twinks like to use.

4th places emphasis on teamwork and streamlining. No one character class is overly powerful, and mixing character classes is very limited, so the exchange of powerful abilities between character classes is of course, very limited.

In addition, combat goes much smoother as there are fewer options to deal with in terms of what and monsters can do and the few character classes that offered a dizzying array of abilities to keep track of (wizards, ahem).

Still, looking at certain monsters from D&D past and now, I feel the game cheated them. Powerful unique Lich characters, Gods, and the stronger demons and devils seem less a challenge from a game standpoint looking at the stats WoTC gave them.

However, you can tweak creatures for your purposes. That Balor who is infamous for their overpowering fire abilities, whip, and sword coupled with gating and magical abilites can be tweaked by a creative DM to do different things, such as be an avatar to a slime god and have abilities and weapons based off acidic qualities and using those abilities to stun and paralyze player characters. Swapping out templates and abilities makes old monsters look new again.

HudsonD wrote:It's an excellent combat system, no questions there, but I wouldn't call 4th ed an RPG.

Why not?
I love this sort of comment, and I'd love to hear you expand coherantly on it.
To me, role playing doesn't rely too much on system (I've played many), but more on players. The system is there for conflict resolution, not much else. As far the roleplaying element goes, the 4th edition DMG is much better for giving advice on how to run a campaign deal with players.

Da Boss wrote:
Why not?
I love this sort of comment, and I'd love to hear you expand coherantly on it.

Snide comment or not, I do stand by my words
To cut a long story short, a good RPG system supports and promotes RP. D&D 4th doesnt, and fits more the "glorified skirmish wargame" label than the "P&P RPG" one. (Ironically, it's pretty much how D&D started...). Remove the combat system, and save for an anemic skill mechanic, what do you have left ? Nothing. The character themselves only exist as far as their combat roles describe them. If you call D&D 4th ed an RPG, then, by that token, Space Hulk or Necromunda are RPGs too.
I'm sure some people will come and answer that the less mechanics that restrict the RP, the better, and richer it becomes. So "there's a combat system, but you can still RP your character as you want, you're even more free than before !". This might be technically true, but only to a certain extent. First, if you're not using any kind of game mechanics for RP purposes, then why do you need an RPG system at all ? Why not go pure freeform ? Then, if anything, it's the restrictions that define your character and provide a fundation for interpretation. It is a delicate balance, of course, but then that's where you recognize the genuinely good games from the failures.

I'm currently playing it, and honestly, I don't like it. It's all to strict, and theres not enough "freedom" if you keep purely to the rules. Oh, and combat is boring as hell, your pretty much just spamming one power until things drop dead..

Yea, as much as I really want to like 4th edition after preordering the rulebook gift set, I like 3.5 much better and think 4 is WAY too much like a video game(reminding me of one specific one in particular) and too limited.