NEWS

DND....5th ED?

  • 71 Replies
  • 11333 Views

All4BigGuns

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 7531
« Reply #60 on: (21:14:31/01-20-12) »
All in all, I found the whole thing utterly and entirely uninteresting and watered down. All just for the purpose of marketing it to the MMO crowd.
(SR5) Homebrew Archetypes

Tangled Currents (Persistent): 33 Karma, 60,000 nuyen

CanRay

  • *
  • Freelancer
  • Mr. Johnson
  • ***
  • Posts: 11015
  • Spouter of Random Words
    • CanRay's Artistic Work
« Reply #61 on: (21:36:33/01-20-12) »
I fail to see the resemblance. Or do you mean that fortune card shit they added with essentials? Cause yeah, my group avoided that crap like the plague.
"So, I tap this card to attack with and WHEN THE HELL DID I START PLAYING MAGIC???"
All in all, I found the whole thing utterly and entirely uninteresting and watered down. All just for the purpose of marketing it to the MMO crowd.
Yeah, I wasn't exposed to any backstory, even what little was given in the PHB and DMG in 3.0/3.5.  Nothing, just "Go and kill ten snowmoose."  Bleh.
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Ryo

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1924
« Reply #62 on: (21:50:37/01-20-12) »
I fail to see the resemblance. Or do you mean that fortune card shit they added with essentials? Cause yeah, my group avoided that crap like the plague.
"So, I tap this card to attack with and WHEN THE HELL DID I START PLAYING MAGIC???"
All in all, I found the whole thing utterly and entirely uninteresting and watered down. All just for the purpose of marketing it to the MMO crowd.
Yeah, I wasn't exposed to any backstory, even what little was given in the PHB and DMG in 3.0/3.5.  Nothing, just "Go and kill ten snowmoose."  Bleh.

Tap what card? The hell you talking about? I don't remember any mana or lands or creatures or sorceries or instants or anything remotely resembling a CCG at all. The Fortune Cards thing is the only thing I can think of.

And you weren't exposed to any backstory? It's DnD. Pick your poison, Faerun, Greyhawk, Eberron, Dark Sun, you've got every edition all the way back padding your fluff and history, yo.  "Go kill ten snowmoose" just sounds like bad DMing.

CanRay

  • *
  • Freelancer
  • Mr. Johnson
  • ***
  • Posts: 11015
  • Spouter of Random Words
    • CanRay's Artistic Work
« Reply #63 on: (22:17:06/01-20-12) »
Well, until I get exposed to a good DM...  I'll stick with other games, thankyouverymuch.
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Mirikon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8980
  • "Everybody lies." --House
« Reply #64 on: (22:41:44/01-20-12) »
So, have any of you 4e haters actually PLAYED any 4th? ... I've yet to meet a 4e detractor who has actually played 4e extensively.
Hey, I'm a 4e detractor that played 4e extensively. My local 3.5 group switched over to 4th when it came out. I also played a few PBP games online at various levels, up through the time that Manual of the Planes came out. I also had a subscription to the website, which allowed me to have the character builder, with all the up to date items. Yippie skippy.

When it first came out, I went in with an open mind. Right away, I noticed that combat was a great deal more balanced than in 3.5, and I agree with people that that is a good thing, in general. However, my problems with the system grew the more I played it, and I tried to do things that, in 3.5, were all but impossible in 4th.

To say that social skills and utility spells were castrated is to be understating the fact. The ritual system made any utility spells that were around too expensive to be worth their time. Skills in general lost their punch, as you had a set number of skills you got a +5 proficiency bonus to, and the others were all just attribute+half your level. None of the strategy of building into being a master pickpocket, or a silver tongued orator.

One of the hallmarks of 3.5 was customization. I'm not talking just in regards to multiclassing and prestige classes, though those were utterly gelded in the transition. I'm talking about even customization within a class. You look at any two members of the same class in 3.5, and they could easily be worlds apart. The difference between a fighter with a sword and shield, and a fighter trained with the spiked chain might seem insignificant at first, until the fighter with the sword and shield begins utilizing improved shield bash while the spiked chain wielder improved trips you. But in all the classes that were more complex (which is almost all of them) there were a lot of different ways to go. There were rogues and bards who played trapsmiths, who focused on social skills, or who simply focused on ruining your day as thoroughly as possible. There were rangers who could shoot the eye of a wolf at a hundred feet, and those who were dual-wielding bringers of death. But with spellcasters, there was the widest range. Two wizards of the same level may have a couple spells in common, but for the most part their spellbooks would be worlds apart. Clerics could change their loadout from day to day.

At first, getting rid of Vancian casting didn't bug me. Afterall, it meant my low level wizard didn't suffer from the fact that, after a couple spells, I was little better than an unarmored commoner with a stick, while at any point a kobold could breathe hard in my direction and I was dead. But after a while, it began to annoy me. One of the good things about Vancian casting is that it allows for greater flexibility day to day, and it adds an element of strategy to the game. A wizard who picked fire spells having to go against a fire elemental was boned. But that same spell setup against a white dragon meant you had the edge. Safe in town for a couple days? You can drop some of your combat spells, and prepare things like Identify or other utility spells to help the party recover from their trip to the dungeon. The same with a Cleric being able to leave off the combat spells for a day, in order to cast Restoration a few times after the Succubus got hold of the Bard. The way 4e works, however, you eliminate all of that, and say, "well, do I use the power/spell/ability that does 2d6+ability damage, with the secondary effect, the one that does 3d6 damage, or do I pop a daily for 5d6 damage?" It doesn't matter what class you're playing, or what powers you have, they're pretty much all like that.

Magic items used to be wonderful things, which you could mix and match, and even combine in interesting ways. Who hasn't had a high level character that had a unique magic item. Perhaps you named your +2 Vile Frost whip-dagger "Winter's Breath", or you had a Hat of Disguise that incorporated a Phylactery of Faithfulness, and you called it "Blessing of Sune". That Cloak of Charisma +4 with the Cloak of Resistance +2 that had an Endure Elements effect could be the "Cloak of the Tundra Priest". In 4e, the magic items just don't have the same soul.

And... well, I could go on, but I think that is sufficient. I have fifteen 4e books on my shelf right now, from when I played it, and I can honestly say that I am quite firmly in the camp of 4E detractors now.
Greataxe - Apply directly to source of problem, repeat as needed.

My Characters

theKernel

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • I believe you like it served cold -Matador
« Reply #65 on: (12:18:22/01-21-12) »
Most well phrased explanation I've heard^^
HACK THE PLANET
Theres no place like 127.0.0.1
Always start and end character creation by asking yourself "why is this character not an ork." If you don't have a good answer you should be an ork. -UmaroVI
"Stay at least one lie ahead of everyone else"-Vitriol
SR4+++hbB?!Wdk++o+++++M+P-

Xzylvador

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3666
  • Ask me about NERPS! 30% Sales!
« Reply #66 on: (13:49:51/01-21-12) »
I used to be a 4th edition player just like you, but then I took an arrow in the leg.*


Tried it for like half a year, hoping it got better with supplementals, errata's and "getting used to". And it only got worse. It really became pokemon meets MtG with minis. All the flavor was taken out of it and any flavor I tried to put into it by trying to make myself belief things that quite weren't got sucked out of it the second it collided with one of the horrible rules mechanics.


* I also dislike the Bethesda "RPGs" since Oblivion.

All4BigGuns

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 7531
« Reply #67 on: (14:11:34/01-21-12) »
I believe that makes the consensus that the majority of "detractors" have played it and discovered through that just how crappy the system is.
(SR5) Homebrew Archetypes

Tangled Currents (Persistent): 33 Karma, 60,000 nuyen

JustADude

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
  • Madness? This! Is! A FORUM!
« Reply #68 on: (16:47:52/01-21-12) »
I believe that makes the consensus that the majority of "detractors" have played it and discovered through that just how crappy the system is.

And, in related news to that I have THIS LINK. I think it sums up my feelings on the entire situation quite well.
“What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”
― Albert Einstein

"Being average just means that half of everyone you meet is better than you."
― Me

street.mage

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 73
« Reply #69 on: (23:50:14/01-27-12) »
*Walks in with a few gallons of gasoline for this here bonfire.*

So, have any of you 4e haters actually PLAYED any 4th? I started in the days of 3.5e, then moved to pathfinder, and was just as adamant against 4 when I heard about it as you guys are now. Then I actually played the damn game, and hey, I prefer it now. It's a hell of a lot more fun to play than 3.5 or pathfinder ever were. I've yet to meet a 4e detractor who has actually played 4e extensively. It's a good game, though it has major issues in the encounter building department. Fun as a player, nightmare for a GM.

As far as 5e goes, as long as they streamline encounter building, I'll try it out at least.

Hi, Ryo.  I'm street.mage.  And I'm a D&D 4E Detractor.  I'm actually a D&D detractor.  Wow, those statements make it sound like I'm at an AA type meeting for old D&D players.  Anyway, I started playing D&D 15 years ago (hey, this isn't getting better) in 2nd E.  I hated it the first time, but was hooked after that initial Keep of the Borderlands module (Ugh).  I followed 2E to 3E, built up a large pewter miniature army, many of which are not painted still to this day (like most gamers, right?), followed that to 3.5, and had EVERY BOOK out there.  Sold them all on the onset of 4E (might still have a few though out in the garage), and was really looking forward to it.  Bought that first "folder" adventure with the "quick start rules" and such as the teaser, then bought the collector's 3 pack set with the 3 core books, preordered it, and if I recollect, picked it up a day before "release."  I moved shortly thereafter, started a game that June 2008, and ran a long campaign.  I know I had every plastic dragon, every beholder miniature, and almost every thing "useful," including almost the entire Harbinger first set of plastic crack.  I had well over 1000 miniatures.  I bought two huge storage cabinets at Lowe's to house them all (granted, the gargantuan dragon and colossal red took up like a shelf) and bought the monthly "Dungeon and Dragon" magazines with character builder, monster builder, etc.  I think I still have it downloaded on my CPU.

When I first started the campaign, it was fresh.  Everything was balanced and orderly.  The plastic miniatures along side the painted pewter (I have an art degree, I'm pretty good or so I've been told) looked great.  The story line was superb, characters were fleshed out well, powers were being flung all over the combat grid, etc.

Then I played SR 4E.  What the frag is this D&D nonsense??  One of my players was a 1st edition SR guy from way back, and had ran a 3E game several years prior; but there I played a decker that wasn't good at much of anything in combat - had a pistol and rolled like 5 dice to shoot it.  I felt as useful as Princess Leia's little toy gun in combat.  I was good at looking up stuff in the Matrix, but that was about it.  In the 4E game, I played a troll bounty hunter/infiltrator/long range specialist and had the time of my life.  I was instantly hooked on the background, the world, the flavor.  D&D was fun, but it was like I was eating frozen pizza for my entire life and enjoying it, then got a gourmet pizza and the frozen variety just wasn't up to snuff anymore.  I started seeing how 4E D&D was so...bland.  I actually missed the complexity of the 3.5 conglomeration, and desired something a little more challenging of a character, of a campaign, of a game that was more than just a crazy realm of combat.

What's wrong with 4E?  Nothing.  In a vacuum, nothing.  It's a different game than SR or 2.0E D&D, 3.0D&D, 3.5D&D, WOD, and Pathfinder.  In comparison?  It's too balanced.  Someone else mentioned that basically the powers were the same from class to class to class, just different flavor....that's very true.  A fighter deals W + str with sliding strike (making up a name, don't really recall this crap, but could look it up if necessary) and a mage casts Magic Missile 2d4 + Cha (That one, I remember).  Weapons were typically 1d8, avg 4.5 dmg + 3/4 Str, total of 7.5 with a slide a square.  MM rolled 2d4, avg 2.5, or 5 for both dice + Cha, again 3/4 was the typical bonus, sometimes 5 if you were playing the powergamed race and class together (elf wizard, in example), that's 8.5 dmg.  So fighter deals 7.5 avg damage with a forced movement of a square, mage deals 8.5 avg damage.  That's a difference of one damage.  Sure, you could set up powers and do teamwork and ladedadeda make a tactical combat scenario for 3 hours, but that's just stats on a page.  There isn't any flavor.  It's all generic, and it looses it's appeal after a few slings of the "at will" spells or sword stuff.  Skill challenges were a nightmare, and that's a big reason on why the dude that had his name on the DMG got canned.  They just didn't make sense.  Skills are a backseat to combat.  Fluff is practically non-existent.  All magic items are combat oriented.  There just didn't seem to be enough cool magical items or specialty items.  4th edition to me is a tactical open ended board game with a myriad of options for character powers.  Fleshed out characters didn't seem rewarded enough to be creative - they sit in the mold of combat with the lawful stupid paladin that the 15 yr old boy is playing.  To me, the role-playing was completely different than in WoD, SR, and other storytelling games.  Because the books had nothing but the rules as it's focus, the fluff was from Dragon magazine (and even still, half of it's crap was cruchy numbers and new powers that barely looked different than the last -  ooohhh, the fighter can take an at will instead and shield bump him for 1d6 +str plus push two squares!  That's exciting!) and people's imagination, which left the individual game and story up to the players and DMs.  The rules didn't support creative gameplay, rather, they seemed to work around it.

Now those are my opinions.  The game system is only part of the equation on having a good time or fun.  Part of it is time to play long enough.  Much of it is who is running the game, and who is playing in it.  I'm sure Keith Baker would be an awesome DM, but for a bunch of boring guys that aren't inventive or have character thoughts on why the character would take such an action, his skills would be a poor match for these guys.  It'd be like putting a rocket scientist as a 5th grade math teacher.  Could he do it?  Probably.  But wouldn't his skills be put better, like i dunno, using science on rockets?  The players you are with also make an impact.  Bill, the guy that farts a lot and never showers is going to make a sad gaming experience regardless of who is running it, what system it is, if it's a cool story, so on and so forth.  I personally believe that EVERY game can be fun, every game people can have more fun playing than others; it's just what appeals to that group, their maturity, their wants and desires from the game, etc.  What matters is if every one is having a good time, because if they aren't, what's the point?  A system however, it's applications, appeal, easiness to learn and apply - all makes a game experience "more fun" however.  This is why I think SR is a better game; it's appeal and applications and fun way to create characters make 4E D&D look like skipping rocks.  If skipping rocks is your cup of tea, great.  Have a blast.  But I came to role-play, not roll-play.  It's fun to do both, but not one exclusively.

I do play Magic BTW, and enjoy it.  I also sold 80-90% of my miniatures, and all of my 4E books.  I'll give 5E a look, probably pick up the core books and even play it.  But SR is king, and this new game system had better knock my socks off for me to set SR aside for more than a couple of months.  I'm GMing a new SR game now, and it is daunting - but it's so much fun and exciting.  Except for fighting monsters in 2E when I was 18, I haven't felt this way ever.
« Last Edit: (23:56:55/01-27-12) by street.mage »

Kylen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
« Reply #70 on: (22:01:05/01-28-12) »
As a player myself:

I have a loathing for 4e. I tried it. Three times. I saw no need for the sheet the first two DMs handed me, and the third just asked what class I was going to use and gave me a ring of cards for a fourth level character. I didn't feel like I was playing D&D, I felt like I was playing WoW the Table Top Game. The story was more Quest Hub then actually "find your next hook". Hell, there wasn't even much a story, so much as running around from encounter to encounter.

Then again, I'm a Shadowrun/Pathfinder fan. And that's my 2 nuyen, other then I won't trust 5e for as far as I can toss the WotC building.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - Tolkien

"F*** subtle." - Dresden

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5847
  • Kids these days...
    • Coming soon!
« Reply #71 on: (18:53:10/01-29-12) »
Well, I think the message has been spoken and spoken again and again. Since we are now officially beating a dead horse, this thread serves no other pupose.