D&D 4e

[cikevin]

I've been playing the new D&D for a little while now and I've realized some things I do and don't like about it.

I like at-will powers and the fact that everybody gets them. I like the balance of classes and abilities.

Comments

[missperkigoth]

Our group has yet to venture 4th for the same reason. Everything's done up like an MMO. Umm, I play D&D for the fun of playing my character, not because I must smite the BBEG of the Week. I have video games for that. It's just too combat heavy and not flexible enough for crazy character development.

We're running a monstrous humanoid campaign right now, and we couldn't even try it in 4th as it stands now. We definitely rely on skills and character interaction far more than combat. Though I would kill to see a githsarai monk do gun katas.

And that's the dorkiest thing I'll say all day.

[cikevin]

I don't actually have an issue with many of the MMO-ish aspects of things. Combat in 3.5 wasn't any better. When it came down to fighting, if there wasn't interesting terrain, all I did with my rogue was try to get into position for sneak attack damage. Without interesting motivations and circumstances, it got old too.

I just didn't mind the combat in my 3.5 campaign as much because the GM had an interesting political situation for us to be involved in, but I think it could have been run just as well in 4e if that had been available at the time.

I think my issue is more with the mentality that the game is entirely about fighting new and interesting monsters and their different crazy abilities. When I think back, that's much of what I didn't like about 1st and 2nd edition D&D games when I played them back in the day.

I could totally see running an RP-heavy 4e game with a fairly limited palette of enemies. The tools are there. It's just that my current D&D GMs aren't using them to my liking.

[missperkigoth]

Well, I can see how 4th could be cool in some respects that way, I just really don't like what they have done thus far with it. Granted, the fact that we have a disgustingly extensive 3.5 library is a huge part of why I have no interest in dropping that kind of coin starting over with 4th. But it's what the 3.5 world gave us to work with that made it fun. For crying out loud, the Minatures Handbook is worth the price for the girlfriend class Healer build alone. I love multi-classing characters to fit a particular concept, and the options for multi-classing in 4th edition just don't make it feasible.

4e

[allaboutm_e]

:: feels old ::

Re: 4e

[ex_pulparch]

My two cents is that your 4e DM hasn't bothered to implement much of the advice in the 4e DMG about running campaigns. Quests. Page 42 stunting. Skill Challenges. Chapter 2's unexpected section on pacing and making the opposition matter to the PCs.

I mean the 4e combat system is fun, but its only one element of the game (pretty much most of the PHB besides character creation). That said, when fighting Gelatinous cubes, or most any monster having your bases covered with party roles is usually best. Leaders that can grant movement, defenders that can hamper or lock down foes...etc.

I've found that running skill challenges concurrently with combat has made both far more fun. Last session had the PCs negotiating with a bound demon and running interference to prevent the undead from releasing it, they ended up swearing a pact to the demon and later used it to cow the Hobgoblin chief into joining forces with them. Its a shame your DM hasn't been using any of the many fantastic terrain to spice up the combats.

Re: 4e

[cikevin]

I haven't read the DMG yet, but I hear it does have good advice. I can't be sure how many of these issues are due to weak DMs, how many are weaknesses of the system, and how many are weaknesses of their scenarios. (They're running modules, but I don't know how well written the scenarios are.)

Is this PK?

Hey Kevin!

[philthy_murphy]

It's Phillip! I'm adding people on my new LJ and I want YOU!

to be on my friends list