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.

The newest incarnation of D&D really disappointed me, and I was wondering if any others felt the same. I'm no purist, as I got my teeth into the 3.5 books when I started (and I feel was also the perfection of the d20 system/D&D) But the recent, edition just felt like I was playing WoW on a board. No more freedom to bash orc heads in with a pint. No more circumventing challenges through wit, muscle, and a dash of magic. Just unstoppable, no save powers. But, I need to stop my rant, and let you guys do the talking. So, got anything to share?

It's a pretty good gaming system. I'd play it if it wasn't called D+D. It is in no way shape or form Dungeons and Dragons.

I started DnD with that format, and my first DM was pretty bad with it.
I recently started DMing for my friends, and it's fairly easy to just make up rules for doing whatever.
Like, my friend will want to set a tree on fire, he uses a sunrod and sets it on fire. I'm not gonna prohibit something that is logical and makes the game more interesting.
In the same way, the "d20 system" is actually a very good idea, as it allows all the various actions that you could previously take your games, and simplifies the process. If my players want to try and murder the king, I'm not gonna make them go into combat with him, and make up rules for the king. I just ask what they do (block the door, silence him etc.) and just have them roll the d20 for each action, and modify it accordingly.

I think is what 2nd edition should have been not that 1.5 that they called 2nd.

I have both played and run it. The only limitation is the gaming group, if you are having problems with the skill challenges just have the characters bypass the challenge if they figure it out.

What the game does most is attempt to kill the DM vs. Player mindset and make it a whole group effort.

As far as playing like WoW, What’s so bad about that?

But the point is with Ludovic, if it wasn't called D&D, or better yet called WoW for the table!, I would be okay with it. It's the fact that they are giving the out-of-print sentence to all 3.5 material.

4th Ed has several big problems but after playing almost all the prior eds I can say that I like it. As a fighter player I was kind of tired that after the first few levels everybody could do my job better than me, even wizards!, so I like the additional options 4th Ed gives me.
Also a big misunderstanding in 4th Ed is the lack of detailed rules for anything but combat, it was not designed to limit the game but rather to expand the RPG options, now for any type of cool action you take it to the GM instead of searching through 7 rulebooks to see if you can do it or not. So if you are having problems by being unable to jump from walls and hang from chandeliers, it´s not the rulebook but your GM.

M.

Are there not Dungeons?

Are there not Dragons?

Actually, my main point is what was so DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS about 3.5? Comparing
the two systems to the game's origins shows you just how different the game has/had become.

Yes, it did. Then Pathfinder resuscitated it!

I feel like we've had this conversation before at least once.

No, 4th Edition did not ruin it for me. I have just as much fun as I ever have becuase it hasn't really been about the system but about the people you play it with. The greatest system in the world played with a bunch of jerk-offs will always suck compared to playing a 'meh' system with some awesome friends.

All valid points. I guess I should have thought more carefully about what makes the game, rules or good friends. Plus, maybe I should give it a second chance after shelling out for all the rulebooks. Thanks for making that more clear Dakkites.

4th finally gave me the abilitty to do many of the things I could not do in 2nd and only thought I could do in 3rd & 3.5.
But I'm one of those player/GM's who belives that the character sheet is only there so when the GM asks how do you get over the 3000ft canyon and you say spread my magic wings and fly he knows your not lying

As for the lack of heavly defined skills

Its Called Dungeons & Dragons not Barmainds & Blacksmiths

Anpu42 wrote:As for the lack of heavly defined skills

Its Called Dungeons & Dragons not Barmainds & Blacksmiths

True enough, true enough...now if we could just get our players to realize this

I don't know that D&D has necessarily become WoW with minis, but that is how it's presented through the core books (in my opinion).

Played by people just getting into the game and taking the core books as the be-all and end-all, it's nothing more than "combat-combat-combat, assign points, rinse, repeat."

That said, it still makes for a good game. It's just become more important than ever before to have a good group who understand the basic premise of an RPG, and especially a good DM who can both challenge and accommodate the party without restricting their actions solely to what the core books say they can do.

The Fox Lord wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:As for the lack of heavly defined skills

Its Called Dungeons & Dragons not Barmainds & Blacksmiths

True enough, true enough...now if we could just get our players to realize this

Make them read though some of these treads. More they do it the more they will beg you to stop and then they may get the point.

hungryp wrote:I don't know that D&D has necessarily become WoW with minis, but that is how it's presented through the core books (in my opinion).

Played by people just getting into the game and taking the core books as the be-all and end-all, it's nothing more than "combat-combat-combat, assign points, rinse, repeat."

That said, it still makes for a good game. It's just become more important than ever before to have a good group who understand the basic premise of an RPG, and especially a good DM who can both challenge and accommodate the party without restricting their actions solely to what the core books say they can do.

Good points but at least now with an even half decent DM you can go from 1st to 30th and never once draw a weapon, heck if youve got a really good DM you can go from 1st to 30th never pick up a die and maby crack open a core book once a level.

Here are some things to concider

All very, very true.

4th did kill official d&d for me. i wasn't a huge fan of 2nd but played it a bit and played the hell out of 3/3.5. when 4th came along, my entire group switched over and, to the last player, agreed it wasn't for us. it felt like a long drawn out minis game (i like minis games, mind you, but not THIS much in my d&d) where you knew the end result of 1st level combat but had to fight out another 45min of it because the stupid first level kobolds have 20+ hit points. combined with wotc discontinuing d&d skirmish and SWM/SWRPG, they'd basically abandoned me as a customer. i used to spend $30-60 a month on their products on months when no new minis set was coming out and $250 on months they did. now that sum will be zero. as for the variety of 4th edition, the characters all played the same. everyone now is a mage effectively and no one can choose to play the "simple" class like 1st/2nd/3/3.5 fighters. now we get to play a wide variety of classes with totally different powers like below.

Uh, those are basic first level attacks, and all three are different. The first one helps keep you alive, the second one messes with your enemies head and can be used with a ranged weapon, and the third one hits a weaker defense. Or are they all the same purely because they cause a similar amount of damage?

Yeah, it was as warboss points out there that killed it for me. I liked the variety. As opposed to, well, like the fighter, or rogue, or cleric, or monk, or etc., I have this attack I can do all the time that does 1 die of damage. Where's the versatility? When the powers or abilities really aren't that diverse, what's the point of different classes?

I also don't like the reliance on criticals the current edition has. I wasn't overly thrilled with them when they came in to begin with, but now being effective as a mage requires that you have them if you want to do more than 2 dice of damage to anything. It's bad enough that criticals in the game are bad for the PC's (you've got 4 pc's, vs how many npcs?, how often do you think your going to get as compared to how many the NPC's are going to get?), but requiring them for your spells to continue being potent 3 levels after you got them is ridiculous. Nor do I care for the at will, 1/encounter, 1/day bit. What if my character is a pyromaniac and wants to specialize in fireballs, and to be able to throw three or four every combat? Or at least 3-4 every day?

As for barmaids and blacksmiths, well, didn't really have the skill choices when I started out, and we made do if we wanted our characters to take up such a profession. But when it comes to it, is there a problem with having non-combat related skills or abilities? Backgrounds? Useful knowledges that aren't directly related to kobold slaying? It is a role-playing game.

dancingcricket wrote:Yeah, it was as warboss points out there that killed it for me. I liked the variety. As opposed to, well, like the fighter, or rogue, or cleric, or monk, or etc., I have this attack I can do all the time that does 1 die of damage. Where's the versatility? When the powers or abilities really aren't that diverse, what's the point of different classes?

I also don't like the reliance on criticals the current edition has. I wasn't overly thrilled with them when they came in to begin with, but now being effective as a mage requires that you have them if you want to do more than 2 dice of damage to anything. It's bad enough that criticals in the game are bad for the PC's (you've got 4 pc's, vs how many npcs?, how often do you think your going to get as compared to how many the NPC's are going to get?), but requiring them for your spells to continue being potent 3 levels after you got them is ridiculous. Nor do I care for the at will, 1/encounter, 1/day bit. What if my character is a pyromaniac and wants to specialize in fireballs, and to be able to throw three or four every combat? Or at least 3-4 every day?

As for barmaids and blacksmiths, well, didn't really have the skill choices when I started out, and we made do if we wanted our characters to take up such a profession. But when it comes to it, is there a problem with having non-combat related skills or abilities? Backgrounds? Useful knowledges that aren't directly related to kobold slaying? It is a role-playing game.

At first I was going to get and realy let into you for this but then I realized I'd just be having the same STUPID arguement I've been having with two of my players every time we played and desided it's just not worth the stress...So to all the 4th haters, not just you I'd Like to Say ... Ok I'm done, I feel better thank you and goodnight

2nd ed D&D killed it for me.

Haven't touched it since.

Back when I started in 2nd our DM was pretty good with moments of pure Awsomesause, but then there were some shifts in the group dynamic, few good, then 3rd came out and two of the player decided to stand against it from the moment it was anounced (almost two years before it actualy hit the shelves), that didn't help things and is why I jump on 3rd so quick (even though I've come to loath it now with a seathing and violent passion) and one of several reasons I'll deffend 4th till death.
Fight and arguments like this are part of the reason why the above DM's brain has been quickly becoming tapioca over the last decade and that just makes me sad.

I'd also like to aplogize for my above post, but that rant (and yes every word replaced by an Orkmoti started with an F) has been building for a while now...anyway sorry for yelling

If you don't see the inherent differences in those powers shown you either haven't played the game or you haven't really read the books. Each of those is different in a few ways. The way they are similar is that they are at-will abilities, which are the most common basic abilities. They aren't supposed to be flashy or overly powerful. It makes it more interesting than just saying "I attack".

There also seems to be a memory lapse as to the fact that you can houserule anything. It isn't new, people have been doing it since 1st edition. Want to make a fire focused mage? Work with your DM, change some of the spells to the fire keyword instead of lightning. Even in 3rd (or 2nd, or 1st) you couldn't cast spells willy-nilly so having limits isn't a new thing.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Yes, it did. Then Pathfinder resuscitated it!

Don't play DnD myself atm. I am still playing VtM and ignoring White Wolf's apocalypse...

However, I know about 15 DnD players and they have all switched to Pathfinder and love it. They ALL hated 4.0

My group never made the switch to 4E--we still play 3.5E every now and then. We didn't like the changes to the setting we normally play in (Forgotten Realms), and were happy with the 3.5E ruleset, so just didn't change.

I suspect that when I move away later this year, though, it's probably going to be very hard to find anyone else still on 3.5E in my new location. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised, or maybe I'll hold out a few more years for 4.5/5E!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:However, I know about 15 DnD players and they have all switched to Pathfinder and love it. They ALL hated 4.0

Well that is because people by and large hate change. There are still people who hate 3rd because it isn't 2nd edition. Just like that scenario as time goes on it will be harder to find a 3.5 game. Our 4th Edition (we use Living Forgotten Realms) group has about 20 active members at our store and 50 signed up on the website. There is also a 3.5 group of about 4 people.

If you like it 3.5, that is fine, but I don't see the incessant need to denigrate something just because it isn't one's cup of tea. There are flaws and virtues to each of the systems, as none of them are perfect.

I remember all the complaining when 3rd edition 40k came out, and then 4th, ect ect.

I have not had a chance to play or even read 4e. I own a large number of 3.5 books though, and I got the free pdf version of the beta-Pathfinder 3.x, so I am more likely to use that to preserve my old books, if I play anything any time soon.

D&D never had good rules to begin with. Ever. But it was characterful and fun.

4E is a good skirmish game, but as an RPG it has all the soul and warmth of a hospital waiting room.