Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Launches 159
darkwing_bmf writes "Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition rulebooks are now available. There's a review up at EuroGamer. Unfortunately, the online tools portion, D&D Insider, isn't ready yet."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Launches
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
Not a review (Score:2)
There's nothing about any of the mechanics of how the game plays, except that it's supposedly easier for newbs and balanced at all levels.
So in summary, there are...
1. New books!
2. New art!
3. Online tools!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. New books!
2. New art!
3. Online tools!
4. New prices!
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Not a review (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not trolling here, and I usually share your sentimate but honestly the last time I went into one My main goal was to get my son out as fast as possible. What a bunch of foul mouthed SOBs.
Gaming stores aren't for people who want to run a business, they're for people who want to show off their gaming collection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Locally-owned" does not always mean "good." Sometimes it does, but more often than not it doesn't, and that's why chains succeed. You might not think much of McDonald's, but there's a reason people went there instead of diners and hamburger stands: McD's has always had high standards for customer service and cleanliness.
The same is true of bookstores. I remember the last t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well hell, $60 in 1980 is the equivalent of about $170 now.
$60 dollars now was around $21 in 1980.
Seems like a deal to me!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Okay - funny joke, but it's not accurate. Have you checked the price of the new books? I don't know if it's just the US$ to UK£ exchange rate at the moment, but the new books bought together are actually cheaper than I paid for the same three core books years ago when 3.5 came out. WotC (Wizards of the Coast) are hoping to keep on selling further books each year, but right now, the cost to get into the game is really low.
The online tools are $15 a month which may or may not seem a lot depending on
Re:Not a review (Score:5, Informative)
No more memorized spells at all...you learn, "Otlukes flaming bunghole" you can cast it every round like you were swinging a sword.
Some abilities are "per encounter" meaning you can only use it once per combat. Others are "per day", so once per day.
I don't know. I haven't finished going through the rules yet, but I'm not pleased. A lot of things that I never thought "had to be said" are now filled in for you...like the "party role" for your class...Fighters now have "tanking" abilities that "force" the monster to attack them...What the hell is that about? Didn't everyone and their mother used to role play that? Instead of being a simple framework, D&D is more like a complete game.
Some people may be pleased with that, but to me its like someone pre-chewed my dinner.
Re:Not a review (Score:4, Insightful)
My pre-play evaluation of 4e is that the rules are improved muchly in terms of game-play and ease of banging out encounters. There are a lot of nice ideas in it such as Minion rules to make High Level vs. Mooks a viable encounter again. Production values are fantastic. But the role-playing side seems to have been gutted both by a lack of non-combat rules and by character and monster abilities that make no sense at all except for the metagame reason of interesting combat tactics. The latter problem undermines immersion in the setting more than the designers realised, imo. But I wont say more here as I've already posted more detailed thoughts below.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to the role-playing side but I fully agree with what you say. Ideally, however, the game should support both styles if that doesn't damage the support for either (which I think it does not as the rules are separate areas) and try to find innovative ways of reconciling more than one style if there is conflict. Sadly the designers have pretty much stated that people should take a World of Darkness style of improvised hand-waving to deal with non-combat situations.
Re: (Score:2)
When that occurred to me I found the rules easier to take. Yeah I don't need to know what the roles are, but why should it bother me that they explain it for some who does. When I pick up a programming book, I don't get twisted when it explains the basics of OO.
ADnD was NEVER a simple framework. It was always intended to be a complete game. Many people used it as a framework, and those s
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hardly a D&D purist...The best times I ever had with D&D were all in systems so hacked up the only way to tell that it was still D&D was the fact that we still used 20-sided dice.
Still I guess D&D has always been the "Starter RPG"; there are still plenty of more complex games out there.
Re:Not a review (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should the monster do that? It should attack whoever it wants to attack. And the smarter it is the more intelligent its selection and tactics should be.
The whole MMO inspired 'all the monsters wail on the tank, while the rest of the group focuses on one target at a time and burns it down' is the most absurd thing going.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If a monster is target by a fighter, and it decided to attack someone else it takes some damge automatically. It's 3 pts at first level, I don't remember if they scale.
So yes, the monster can attack whomever they like, and there are some rules around targeting. For example if the fighter doesn't attack the monster , the target goes away.
It is in no way like an MMO.
Re: (Score:2)
I have only seen a few Fighter abilities listed for 4th edition, but:
A. The Fighter does a very competitive amount of damage. The Rogue and Wizard do not leave him looking like a useless meat shield.
B. The Fighter doesn't have abilities analagous to the "hold aggro" crap in MMOs that keep oppo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) The fighter "marks" a target after attacking it (read: scary guy who really knows how to use a sword is actively engaged in slicing at you).
2) If that target makes an attack on someone other than the fighter, the fighter gets a free attack of opportunity (read: if someone is actively engaging you in sword play, it leaves you wide open when you turn to bash someone else).
It's dumb
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite correct. As you mentioned below, there are encounter and daily spells. Those you have to "prepare" ahead of time. Still I agree it's way too much uniformity of treatment for my tastes -- every ability is basically the same thing with different descriptions.
And for the 10000000000000000000000000th time, the "tanking" ability is not a binary "aggro" mechanic, it just creates penalties for the the target if he/she/it tries to attack someone else. This does accu
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to see the best implementation of "balance without balance" that I've seen, take a look at the Shadowrun [shadowrun4.com] RPG. Whilst everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, in game play character power is comparable to other ways of doing things. It plays like a super-sophisticated game of Rock, Paper Scissors (if the Rock, Paper and Scissors had a massive, complex backstory) with players always seeking those little ways of altering the circumstances to their advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that sort of thing was fixed, but the kinds of systems that require a brick of d6's just never appealed to me. And the backstory was always a little too cliched, though it was still a lot of fun after embracing the overall cheesiness of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there's a lot of simplification (mostly for the better), but some of the ideas people have gotten about some things like the spell system (for instance) are just plain wrong.
Spells (powers) are split up into at-will, per-encounter and daily use. It
Re: (Score:2)
Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are Deprecated (Score:5, Insightful)
um, no.
I would have respected the choice to get rid of alignment, but this is a boneheaded move. The problem with alignment (with bad role players anyway) is that it reinforces trite stereotypes. This just gives you fewer trite stereotypes to choose from.
Re:Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are Deprecated (Score:4, Interesting)
Having played the game, I can same that it is really fun.
I can also say it is not the same game. It is completly focused on minis, and what you can do as far as moving other players and yourself has added an interesting level of tactics to the game.
The Alignment systems works very well.
from what I had heard about the game I wasn't really looking forward to it, but having actually played the mechanics and the game, I found it to be really fun.
Normally I don't participate in the 'I've been doing it for x years' circle jerk, but since I feel it is relevant to the context of the post I am going to make an exception.
I have been playing DnD for it's entire history, including pre-ADnD. I also have played all the other 'major' systems and I find Savage Worlds to be the superiour RP gaming system.
Re:Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are Deprecated (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like if +100 is LG then maybe +25 is chaotic good? Then -25 would be lawful evil?
The only thing more meaningless than a two word title (e.g. Chaotic Good) is a fricking number. (I see that thou alignment be a mere 14, I will smite thee not-quite-evil-doer!)
Re: (Score:2)
Good: Even Mother Theresa would think you're a prude.
True Neutral: You're a farking schizo.
Evil: Hitler feels his place in history is threatened.
It's probably one of the few things that I though were completely out of line about AD&D under TSR. But then again, I hate players who put too much value in their alignment. Unless you're a cleric or a
Re: (Score:2)
Also holding up Lawful Good as the paragon of virtue that all people should look up to is kinda whacked.
Re: (Score:2)
chaotic vs neutral evil is similarly one of style. Are you a fsking nuts psycho killer doing horrible demented things, or a detached, but pure-evil SOB?
It all depends on the l
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are Deprecated (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with alignment was it started moving towards this a while ago with LG - G - CG - LN - N - CN - LE- NE - CE becoming a single spectrum. It made it difficult to play a saintly Robin Hood type because for some reason respect for the law (which became confounding with one owns organizational qualities), became compounded with goodness.
While it certainly could be used as a crutch by poor roleplayers, that's not a bad thing. Everyone needs time to learn to roleplay, and the CG/LE removed variants provided nice dilemmas. And, if not that crutch, bad roleplayers will fall into character/race archeotypes anyway.
Personally, I would rather have seen the alignments expand so that you could be Goodish/Evilish/Lawfulish/Chaoticish. Not enough to get affected by spells/effects that target people with that alignment, but enough to give people a clue as to how you lean.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I would rather have seen the alignments expand so that you could be Goodish/Evilish/Lawfulish/Chaoticish.
In our D&D games, we already have "goodish", etc. We just said
Re: (Score:2)
I predict the game will al
I liked alignment (Score:2)
Eg, trying to be lawful when you need to bend the rules, or trying to balance things when true neutral.
But then again, within my group as we progressed from junior high to high school, we did less mindless hacking and slashing, and more role-playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe its just all that Ritalin.
Are you kidding? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with 'philosophy" what so ever. It is a rule mechanic in a Black and white game, nothing more.
DnD is a GAME not a representitive of real life.
"Whether or not you devote your life to fighting evil isnt' a matter of alignment, it's a matter of where you get your hit dice..."
that's very...ignorant of the system.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a game that to some extent represents a simulation of a fantasy setting. Attributes like "realism" vs. "game balance" and "simulation" vs. "abstraction" are design knobs that RPG designers play with - but any tabletop RPG tries to simulate a setting to some extent; it's a pre-requisite to plot and roleplay.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is a Moral/Ethical philosophy that your character follows. That's pretty much the very definition of the term. The fact that there were two axes of alignment reflected the fact that it was NOT a Black and White game, but one with a large spectrum of greys.
No, that's the system exactly. What separates a player character from the average commoner? Hit d
Re: (Score:2)
I still think it's dumb, however... The difference between plebs and characters has always been the fact that character have levels in "Character" classes, not the alignment they choose to follow... Making NPCs a uniform mass of grey goo seems kinda dumb.
Also saying you have to be Lawful to fight injustice is downright laughable. Law usually has very little to do with justice...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The common thread is that both place an inherent value on the lives others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They want to get rid of the moral ambiguities that go with LE and CG and make it a nice black-and-white world where you're either a shining beacon of light or a raving mass murderer. And guess what, you don't get to choose which one, you pretty much are stuck with shining beacon by default. This is further supported by the omission of evil gods from the PHB.
Reminds me of the old basic D&D sets, where all the players were lawful, and all the monsters were chaotic (so, how come they have orc kingdoms, hmm?). One of the biggest advantages of AD&D was the ability to play the John Wayne or Han Solo type anti-heroes, or alternately the Palpatine evil politicians.
The discouragement of morally ambiguous DnD games is just plain retarded, and there's really no excuse for it to be honest.
Big change from previous versions, but still good (Score:5, Informative)
From what I've read so far, the main good things about 4th edition that I've seen so far are:
The main complaints I have so far is that they haven't released rules in the Monster Manual for creating your own monsters from scratch and figuring out appopriate levels, and the death penalty is really almost too minor. Raise dead still takes 10 minutes to cast, and the cost does go up as your level goes up, but the penalty is only -1 to all rolls until you rest for 6 hours. I appreciate that they were trying to lessen death effects and other affects that take your character effectively out of game (Medusa gaze, Illithid mind blast, etc), but by having such a minimal penalty for death, you'd have to wonder why any fears death.
Some will certainly complain that 4th edition is too MMO like (especially like WOW), but the new character building rules do admittedly enforce character balance quite well through all levels.
Re: (Score:2)
If you looked for a cleric only because he can heal it's no wonder you've seen the those that play the class as a burden instead of a party member. You're treating clerics like most corporations treat their IT departments and you know how most IT employees feel about their companies...
Oh well, just another reason for me to dismiss WotC as the destroyers of D&D.
Re:Big change from previous versions, but still go (Score:4, Insightful)
The Cleric PC in the campaign I'm running even has the Touch of Healing feat (can basically heal PCs up to half HP for free) and still probably spends half or more of his spells on healing. In almost any campaign I've been in, the decision to rest is usually made because the Cleric is out of healing magic, or the wizard is >90% empty.
Re:Big change from previous versions, but still go (Score:4, Informative)
3/3.5 replaced that problem with a different one. The designers were so desperate to make the class attractive, it became the most powerful class in the game with good combat skills and hit points, healing magic, and the ability to cast a whole host of effective combat spells and "buffs".
And "destroyers of D&D"? Give me a break. Ever play any of the following RPGs: Warhammer RPG, HERO, GURPS, Rifts, Rolemaster, Vampire: the Masquerade, Middle Earth RPG, or the (original) Star Wars RPG? I believe they all came out well before Wizards of the Coast produced 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons. Each has plenty of flaws, but if you've played a few of them it will give you enough perspective to see that all versions of Dungeons and Dragons have some ridiculous inconsistencies and poor design choices that interfere with or downright euthanize fun gameplay.
Wizards of the Coast didn't destroy Dungeons and Dragons. They just rearranged the problems, and I bet you're mostly angry because you have nostalgia for the particular set of problems you enjoyed when you first played some previous edition.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, thanks for telling me what I think but you're wrong.
I have a problem with WotC business model and what it's done to DnD. If you don't see it you must be blind because I found tons of others who've seen it and openly posted about it on this very article. Did you go around telling them what they think too?
Aside from the ability to change up any spell slot to a
Re:Big change from previous versions, but still go (Score:2)
The hit points level off as you get higher, and contrary to your statement, then CAN be killed in one shot. A lot less likely, but it is there.
My Rogue could do d6+8+2d8
I've read those rules, and the monster creation is pretty easy to do. Bear in mind, a monster is a Monster, not another character type.
It is clearly focused
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big change from previous versions, but still go (Score:4, Insightful)
The main things I noticed book keeping wise are as follows:
1) Effects are no longer a number of rounds, its either a) until end of next turn, b) until you save at the end of your turn or c) until end of encounter, up to 5 minutes, which are essentially the same thing.
2) You'll no longer waste 30 minutes as the spellcasters pick their new spells for the day. True wizards still pick their daily powers, but that should go quickly.
3) Thanks to minions, you have to track HP for less monsters at a time.
I think the effect tracking will be the most immediate increase in game speed. I just ran a 3.5 encounter last night with the following effects:
1) Players cast Haste and several invisibilities before combat started, as well as several buffing spells with durations in rounds.
2) BBEG had several defensive spells with duration in rounds.
3) Other monsters had an ability that caused slow, which would tempoarily negate haste for characters afflicted by it for a random number of rounds
4) BBEG was also a mind flayer, so there were mind blasts used at various times which caused stun for random number of rounds to each target.
Now, if the combat is quick, this usually isn't a problem; but this fight went for 10-13 rounds, so various effects started wearing off at various times, and with 6 PCs and 3 monsters, and people using delay actions, its really easy to lose track of which round you're actually in and what round and when in each round a given effect ends.
Re:Big change- SPOILERS (Score:2, Interesting)
If (?) you like to whine, whine about this: Druids and Barbarians are GONE. Spell scrolls are gone. Grey elves are now the whipping boys of the racial soup IMHO.
The statement about clerics being nonessential is misleading. Everyone gets 6-9 healing surges. Once per encounter everyone can get back 1/4th their max HP using a standard action. But once per encounter didn't go far in our adventure. We depended heavily on our c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big change from previous versions, but still go (Score:2)
Lets rephrase that: "They completely gutted the cleric to the point where one asks why play one?" Paladins are better healers now. In my campaigns, because of house rules, I had to keep parties from being 100% clerics. In a group of seven players I once had 4 clerics. It was easy to make them that interesting to play and I never understood the hate players (and DMs) had for the class. 3rd ed was way too influenced by Magic the Ga
Imagine that! (Score:2)
WotC fumbled the ball with software AGAIN? Who woulda thunk it? After their very sophomoric attempt at software with the 3.0 PHG and that shame for sale that they passed off as DM Tools I can only wait to (not) sink my teeth into their next software offering.
I've personally written better software for the game on a TRS-80.
Too much of a departure (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the nifty rules added in 3.5 was that you could take a feat to get an infinte number of "zots", but only until you used up higher level spell slots. So, in other words, you can have a lot of power for a short time or a short amount of power for a long time. In reality, this made fighting minions more fun, because you didn't have to stop and rest before you hit the boss.
Still Using AD&D 2.5 Edition (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember the WotC Slashdot questions regarding the release of the 4th edition. One of the questions was why we should bother to upgrade our libraries since D&D edition 5 is probably just around the corner? The answer was, and I'll paraphrase since I'm getting old, "Because it's just better." Great logic. I read that as "We need more money."
Of course, a lot of our group play World of Warcraft between games and from all indications, 4th edition is tabletop WoW.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But further, you are incorrect in several major ways:
1. In 3/3.5 DnD, a medium to high level character is defined more by his gear than by his skills. That fits an MMO. 4e reduces the gear characters can use and reduces "buff" gear ("buff" is an item or magical event that makes a character stronger, faster, or otherwise more capable).
2. In 3/3.5 DnD, medium to high level characters
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the complete dependence upon magical items, I'm thinking of Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, and such. Strip their magical weapons, belts of strength, and gear to enhance movement at higher levels, and the damage they deal is cut by at least a third and some
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the WotC Slashdot questions regarding the release of the 4th edition. One of the questions was why we should bother to upgrade our libraries since D&D edition 5 is probably just around the corner? The answer was, and I'll paraphrase since I'm getting old, "Because it's just better." Great logic. I read that as "We need more money."
I'm curious as to what you think a good answer to that question would be.
Yes they think its better that previous editions, they wouldn't have released it if they didn't think so because sales of the core books are vital to their survival. If 4E proves really unpopular, WotC isn't just going to weather the storm and release a better game for 5th; they aren't MS, WotC would get out of the RPG business before making a follow up edition to a failed product.
So you don't have a reason to buy it, then don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I guess I will try to explain, and in Slashdot fashion I will use a car analogy.
Imagine you are a grease monkey. You know, you are the person that loves to get under the hood and really tinker around. You own 20+ cars and even an engine block or two extra. You are sitting around one day thinking about picking up that old '69 Ford F-100 with three on the tree when a buddy stops by and tells you the news. Detroit is going all metric
Penny-Arcade and PvP play D&D 4th Ed. (Score:2)
Maybe eventually... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've only looked briefly at the rules, so maybe I'm wrong in some of this.
The alignment system isn't as "broken" as it looks. The original frankly wasn't that great, and the new one isn't so very different. It looks silly at first, but only if you're used to the old one, which has been there since 1st edition. Neither one was a hard and fast stricture on how you can role-play your character, despite some people trying to make it that.
The new races actually look kind of cool. And all classes having "powers" which are about the same. For instance, some have pointed out that there's now no functional difference between a ranger firing his bow every round and a wizard firing off a magic missile every round. OK, but there's still a big difference in flavor. Although I'm going to miss them each having their own separate advantages, disadvantages, and different defenses for each.
Out of combat skills have been scaled way back, which is kind of a shame. In 3.5, you could give more information, or make the NPCs a little friendlier based on knowledge or gather information or diplomacy checks, letting a character be a diplomat or master of social situations even if the player wasn't. In 4th ed, it seems like things like this rely purely on the players skill at convincing the DM. Which eliminates all those characters whose builds were focused on their ability to resolve encounters through other than violent means.
The biggest problem, though, is the online component. Maybe if I was playing regularly again I could justify it. But I'm between groups now and will probably be that way for a while. Normally, I'd be getting Dragon magazine during times like these, but they canceled that. But it's not just extra content it looks like. Significant parts of the rules - most of the classes, powers, monsters, etc. - will be online only. Having to pay an extra $15/month to make the core rulebooks complete makes me want to not buy the core rulebooks rather than make me want to pay extra for the online content.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Funny)
Considering that the average male's wand is +5 to +6, you should be able to see why she's not getting excited.
Re: (Score:2)
Pug
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That must have been awkward.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
-No more wizards/clerics/etc saying, "Crap, I just blew all my spells in that one encounter, I need to rest for 8 hours!"
-Much simplified rules for DMs creating encounters and adventures, as well as putting rewards in those encounters. (This is a complete overhaul, and hard to really give too many examples)
-No more random hit point amounts every level, in addition, a larger hit point total at level 1. (No more fighters rolling a 1 at first level, etc)
-New death/dying system, that scales as you lev
Re:Rulebook? (Score:5, Insightful)
The new rules are very much more elegant. They play quickly in all sorts of areas, from actual combat to monster customization and NPC creation. Character classes are very well balanced with each other and the "sweet spot" that you got in the mid-levels where you were tough enough to survive with good tactics but not so powerful the game became broken... well the game plays well at all levels now. Production values are also very high and I don't think when you read the books and grok the rules, you can really disagree with any of this. There are many well-thought out refinements to the system.
However, the game, imo, seriously suffers on the role-playing side. Non-combat skills are all but gone, character abilities are designed solely for their tactical interest in combat with little thought to justifying them in the game or whether they make the remotest sense and playing with table-top miniatures is all but compulsory now. There are also serious concerns being voiced about whether the classes are now too balanced for their own good. If you can be a wizard firing off endless Magic Missiles (they're at will now), or a ranger firing off endless arrows and both have similar range and damage, you ask yourself whether everything has become a little meaningless through nothing being better than anything else.
It's a difficult one that will only be resolved through trying it out. There's much good stuff in the new game, but there's a serious worry that it's lost it's sole as an actual role-playing game. We'll have to see.
Selling like Charm Person scrolls on a Saturday night, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There still are a hand full of non-combat skills, such as diplomacy and knowledge. But I think the general feeling is the "fluff rules" for non-combat weren't really needed
Re:Rulebook? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need rules for how much you can earn playing an instrument in a village of population X, there's no argument there. But not only have almost all non-combat skills been removed (incl. the generic catchalls you could use such as Profession), but most abilities aren't even defined except in the context of combat. Fey Pact warlocks can teleport after downing a foe. Can they teleport outside of combat? Under what circumstances? Do they carry round pockets full of bunnies so they can kill them if they ever need to teleport? We don't know, we're never told and there are numerous examples of the world just stopping at the edge of combat. Many players enjoy being able to say that they are a world class card player or whatever. The feeling you get from reading the books is very much that it's all about combat. The emphasis is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the ideal and I hope it is the case. I just worry that the designer's long, long experience hasn't blinded them to what it's like not to have that background. Although I've been playing and running games for a long time, I personally need the system to support me in non-combat situations. I'm neither good at, nor enjoy, having to wing and hand-wave it all, but my players prefer the role-playing and story to the combat itself for the most part. I'm not writing off 4e - I want to make that clea
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiousity, did you play 3E at all? I honestly can't imagine playing it 'right' without a battlemat and minatures, or some reasonable facsimile thereof.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I played 3.5, so I'll count it. I was the DM, in fact. It worked absolutely fine without miniatures. Depending on how complex the battle was, I'd sketch out a quick map but a lot of the time it was sheer description. I can certainly imagine how it would feel to a player who was used to studying a board and being able to count distances and perfectly position a fireball, etc. It would seem odd and perhaps frustrating. My players all loved it however. You have to understand that there was no doubt on th
Re: (Score:2)
I played first and second edition mostly without minatures; IMHO, if you're playing 3E or 3.5E without them, you're really playing a homebrew variant.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If a player ever asked me that question, I would immediately respond "Yes. Yes, you do. Start rounding up bunnies. And it has to be *combat* with the bunnies, not just bunny murder, so roleplay it out."
Re:Rulebook? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
RPGs have always been about splatbooks. 4e really isn't any different here.
Re: (Score:2)
At some point you have to accept that they're in the publication business, and they need to sell books. Eventually all the expansions make the rules too unwieldily, so they hit the reset button to put out a new edition and sell more books.
Bottom line is that it's a niche market and the only way D&
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can buy the old books on the internet. That way your group can play whatever edition of whatever RPG you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Melee classes are dramatically more effective in combat at high levels, and not just meat shields for the spellcasters. Buff spells and potions are all but totally gone. Fewer magical items can be worn and PCs are not useless without their magical gear at higher levels.