And to my former comment I am more about inbalance than forced equality. Like If you read about wizards in novels of Salvatore or Greenwood - you know they are top-tiers motherfuckers who play doctor Manhatan at some point. They need to go through shit-tier first though, but the time they traded playing useless slob for half a game now pays off.
I finally bit the bullet & tried 4e. I am old school. After playing a bit. 4e, with both it's good > bad aspects turned out to be a lot of fun to play. Every player gets into the game, and gets to shine. It's not a perfect system, none are, but it is good times. I will be playing 4e instead of 3.5 now. I am glad I was challegended by a young guy in the LGS to try it.
i think i understand what wizards of the coast are doing. they're trying to make the game more appealing to younger people, the stupid teenagers that run if anything has math in it. they're simplifying it and making it more balanced so teenagers and young adults, who are very self-centred, don't feel cheated cuz the person next to them has a better character than their's. it's all so that way DnD will have a future, so people will be playing in 20 years.
I agree with alot of this, but a few things rub me the wrong way. Most of these issues you have can be solved with a good DM running the game. I'm a DM, and would NEVER let a player start off with best armor. i almost always throw my players into a dungeon buckass naked and they have to earn it themselves. Also I have my players roll their scores, which is a feature in Phb1. so not all characters are the same, and i disagree otherwise.
the skill challenges should only require a single check on the STUPID(and weak) guards, if they aren't stupid diplomacy will fail and they will still be there, you can always kill them anyways.
oh... 1st rule of DMing, if your players have enemies that are easy, throw in a hard one, also if they are really good players, they still get similar xp as it should be based on amount of challange.
Since I started on 4th edition I decided to revisit this review and I have to agree with a lot of points Spoony is making here. Although I do like that Wizards have spells that they can repeatedly cast. I also like that all the classes have the same frame to work with but they also gotta come up with more spells that do effects. It feels to me that every class only do damage and some minor effect instead of dazing, stunning and the like.
Jesus saves from the guilt of sin by faith in his shed blood. That is why he came to earth, to die on the cross for our sins so we could go to heaven through faith in his blood. Repent of your sins and ask Jesus to come into your heart. Once you are saved from your sins, you are saved forever. Faith in Jesus is the only way to heaven. If you die in your sins you will burn in Hell and the Lake of Fire for all eternity. God bless.
Ya but the problem is with plate armor is that a level 4 fighter could be the same strength as a level 19 fighter if he had plate armor. Now you add half your level to your AC so it seems more realistic that u have expeireince defending yourself
I'm sticking with 3.5/Pathfinder. Calling 4 sterile is both the best description and reason why it's not for me. For people who prefer 4e then good for you, but it leaves me cold.
Magic items are another way for the player to customize the character, just like feats. Having the DM decide what your character should be is the same as you just not making a character. There are no carved in stone rules for the DM. Skill challenges don't mean 'roll a check to succeed'. The PCs need to role play and then roll to see if their character did it well enough.
While i agree with most of your points. I happen to enjoy 4th edition very much due to the fact that i dont play very often and neither does the group i usually play with, therefore it makes things easier to setup and start playing immediately. However with that being said i wish i had more time set aside to play because if i did i probably wouldnt like 4th edition as much either
Good review...sadly this is the direction of rping...make everything balanced and fair...blah...where is the satisfaction of out-thinking the npcs/dm if everything is balanced? Balance is for the unimaginative whiner who wants an easy 'win'.
I bet thats why its written this way. In the days of yore (old fogie that I am) new players would ask how you win this game. We'd give the answer "you don't".
The new game is directed toward peeps who want a quantifible win.
@Zzaztur Right, because in AD&D and 3rd Edition, when a mage hit about 10-12th level, the fighters became decorations for the wizard, while he blows everything away by himself. Balance is also to keep players who want to play fighters to have something to do instead of watch others outshine them.
@TheJayde Funny viewpoint, although not happenin' in any game I've played or run.
True, mid to high lvl wiz's get decent damaging spells, but its the figher-type who shines in the damage department due to multiple attacks.
Fighters always out-dealt damage on a round by round basis.
Aside from disarm, fighters don't have to worry much about their attacks being interrupted. Also a series of attacks by a fighter is not as expensive as a component, scroll or restoring charges on a wand or staff
Good review. I personally think, though, that you and most of the people who posted a comment here is just too much attached to the rules. I mean rules are important of course, they create the structure of the game, but i don't think they're as important as you think. If you think a ritual should take 10 seconds then just make it take 10 sec, do not stick with the rules too much. D&D is great because you can make your own rules, already-written rules are just a starting point.
Being 18 I picked up 3.5 from a friend in like.... 4th grade, He always ran in depth non generic games, and encouraged his players to make non generic, story based characters. When 4e came out I looked at it as a way to introduce my friends to D&D (from the world of online rpgs) and show them how they can do so much more in this game. I always loved the story of D&D and the fact I could blurt something out in character and face possible problem. Rules are rules, either way its still fun to me.
You know, I couldn't articulate it before, but as soon as I heard "sterile", that was exactly the feeling I got when I was flipping through a 4th ed, like that pleasant DnD taste had been washed out of the mouth, even the pages looked whitewashed.
The sad thing is, though I'll miss 3.5, the whole point of 4th is accessibility to previously non-DnD players, and that's probably all I'll be able to get my friends to pick up.
Nice review. I like 4e but would rather play 3.5 any day. The only thing that gets me, it how Wizards of the coast seem to be putting 3.5 down now. Like it wasn't really all that great a game to begin with and they have this new shinny goof 4e D&D game that you should play.
WOW-you have completely read my mind-magic items are supposed legendary and mysterious, and not for the players to read about. And whats with kobolds having 30 hp? After 22 years of D&D today I ran my first fouth...its ok. My players died at the end of the 1st level adventure because the adventure had 3 skeletons with 45 hp ea, a necromancer with 40, and a hulking zombie with 70. The hulking zombie could kill a player with one hit with its melee attack--we may be headed back to 3rd
I think you gave it a fair review, and I believe that your last comment was the most important. Houserules and strong DMs, no matter what edition you play, make or break a D&D experience. One thing you might have mentioned that I noticed, however, is that the streamlined rules make rule lawyering a thing of the past. Fewer "skills" (and rules to govern them) encourages more lively roleplay and DM discretion than 3e (I've never played 2e, unfortunately.)
I'm one of the people who can safely say "I do not fear change". I've started with Classical D&D, tried AD%D1st, went through the whole AD&D2nd and 2.5 era, and found my way to D&D3 and 3.5. In all those changes, I hardly had any problem adapting and, in fact, 3.5 still is my favorite version (with some homebrew changes, though).
The 4th edition is the ONLY one I can't play. It's... not a RPG anymore. It's some sort of wargame. Good wargame, yes, but extremely disappointing as a RPG.
I would agree with you that the ritual system is completely pointless. I'm not a fan of the 4E combat system in general because if the feeling of "sameness" that you were previously talking about. There just isn't enough meat to the 4E system & for me personally.
I feel this game is a different animal than the old D&D systems. Most people fear change. I do have issues with this game as well, but by design I find the "balanced" concept both good and bad. I find this game more of a mix of a minatures/role-playing game.
Designing adventuring teams is more like building sports team. Everybody has a position they need to play. I do feel that the role-playing idea has been removed but a good GM should be able to fix that.
@gatoneko then you have some players who may need to either learn to count correctly, or players who need to stay awake during combat, which in 4E can be a problem.
@matthewlane No they are very good with math, and were wide awake. It's just that the monsters in 4th Edition have been pumped up to be pretty much on par with the players.
@gatoneko not unless your playing with "essential" stuff it hasn't. I'm not a fan because i have played & the lack of any real potential for death or permanent effects was one of the things that really shit me off about the system.
@matthewlane It depends. If you are playing with the full suite of options, PCs have a lot of advantages over monsters which haven't seen anywhere near the exponential increases in options/power. But if you play mostly with the PHB and don't keep up with the errata, it can be challenging if you do not fully optimize, or have a few bad die rolls.
I think the player's handbook is to be used as a guideline. What's to prevent you from starting a character off with much less gold or giving your Fighter plate armor proficiency or the DM from saying that a Goblin Minion has 2 hp instead on just 1 hp? I thought D&D was about using your imagination. It can be as interesting and challenging as you want it to be. It's not like the bald dude from WotC is going to barge into your session and start saying "No, you can't play that way".
What about a game system that allows you to develop your character as a person; no class defined and we must find/join/develop our own class, which also develops as we (the players) want it to in relation to our characters innate attributes?
I've found skill challenges great for non-combat action scenes or investigation/navigation scenes. With some role-playing thrown in the ones I've played and ran have all been incredibly fun and helped add an element to those types of scenes that generally just get a "Roll your skill, ok after a few minutes you catch the orc that was racing a canoe down the river". For social encounters they do break down though if not run well and do indeed feel forced and artificial.
Great review! This guy is spot on. I also agree with him that AD&D is better than 3rd or 4th ed. My group still plays AD&D (2.5, w/ Spells and Magic, Combat and Tactics, etc.) and I wouldn't change it at all. You can make unique characters, not cookie cutters like the newer editions. If you like AD&D, play it! There're plenty of books out there still. Don't play something new, just because it's new. New does not = better.
No, it's not D&D. The most explanation is Hasbro had a game, Magic Sword, that they didn't decide to release until after they bought WoTC...at which point, they had the D&D license, and so slathered D&D-esque words on Magic Sword and called it a day. This is why 2 years after the fact they're changing rules (eg, Magic Missile) to make it more like D&D.
So no, not D&D...but 4e is still a quite playable game.
I like that characters powers are different. In other versions you just gain x power at level. Makes all same class characters the same. I also like how skills are handled.
It sums my feelings up to say "4th edition is a good game, but it is not DnD." I will still be a fan of 3.5 edition just due to my love of character optimization.
I do agree with you about the magic item table for sure. Everyone I play with also takes turns being GM and it gets really annoying when they have that kind of knowledge. Some think that they are "experts" and end up arguing with the GM.
Then again, I employ a bag of holding in a portable hole method if someone argues too much. Buh bye :)
Well done. I had similar reactions to a lot of the elements of 4E. The game has fun elements to it, but straight out of the book it feels like it's missing out on the improvisational legroom that my best DnD moments tended to stem from, like using spells in weird ways to solve puzzles, that sort of thing.
I played a wizard in 4E and I didn't die once, five hours of straight playing, I got so unbalanced encounters that in 3E with a wizard I would have been destroyed in the first one. 3.5 FTW
"no middle ground" says it all; see the kind of thinking used in 4 is different then the earlier eds. ...think about it, -ad&d & 3 to me are ....? ...more advanced game and thought processes
House rules is the key word. Discard what you don't like. I don't let my characters start with ANY equipment or ANY spells they want. I give them a limited list of what is available in their town/city. Not every little town has a magician who has a fireball spell, you have to find it and learn it. Not every tiny hamlet has full plate armor for sale or even a smithy who can make it. Make the characters work with what they have and don't make everything available to them. This creates better play.
@rurik36 Anywho stop debating stuff i am not even arguing as if i am making a case for it(when i am not),
If you so badly want to look like your on a high chair and winning a debate, go have a real debate, nock down the other sides actual case in the debate then enjoy the high chair.
While I agree about the magic items section, how many times did you play a game at a higher level than 1? Now count how many times you started with gear the DM gave you in those games and I'll bet you have the exact same number. Although, I do agree this is taking away the mystery, I believe the only reason you would want to look at them for more than just a glance is to A) look at kick ass stuff you'll get in the future (making them more awesome) or B) picking out gear for a higher character.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
3rd and up make it easier for bad gamers to game, in the real dnd(tsr's) if you sucked you could not hide it and would be filtered out fast), supporting bad gamers to game only poisons a gaming community, you may put thumbs down on this one but i am right and that is fact!.
Thumbsed down. You're wrong, and that is a fact. 4th Ed. blows, but 3rd and 3.5 and now especially pathfinder have a lot of redeeming qualities. If you're playing with bad gamers, they'll get killed off a lot, and they'll get tired of rolling new characters. And if they're a real asshole(like yourself), you just stop inviting them to join games. Look at that, I just solved two problems!
@CondorDM You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. There's more to RPG's than just the G for game, the role playing is just as important. Just because a person is bad with the statistical aspects of D&D doesn't mean they can't be an incredible role player, conversely a person who can min/max the hell out of characters and have the most powerful wizard of all time could be a terrible role player. Both are good skills to have, but in different circumstances.
Simply put, you can be bad at dming and dm 2ed but the game will always show you for what you are. #rd and up helps you mask this problem so bad dms and even bad players can come in and scam staying around long enough to spoil games ectr.
After they are refused in all other area then you see them joining a variety of others systems and bringing crazy bad habits from when they were playing wotc rpg.
@CondorDM And how exactly do you define a "bad DM?" Someone who's bad at number crunching? Again, there's more to an RPG than just numbers, I don't care how skilled someone is at working the system, if they can't role play well I don't want to play with them. If all I wanted was dice rolling and combat I'd play the war games that D&D was originally based on, but that's not what I'm interested in. I want epic tales of good and evil, swords and spells, rangers and miniature giant space hamsters.
@rurik36 Ok this whole "lack of rp and focus on combat" your talking about as if this is what i support is bs, your debating against something i have not pitched or made a case for in anyway.
You can argue with yourself on that topic.
Of course character developed, rp + hack and slash make a good game, not one more then the other 50/50, myself i give you what the situation calls for regardless but offer rp and combat and other things.
@CondorDM I never said that's what you considered to be a bad DM, that's why I asked you how you define one. And 3rd and 4th sucking are opinions, not a fact. Every edition of D&D has it's strong points and it's weak points. AD&D for instance was unintuitive with lower numbers being more desirable for it's version of armour class and attack bonuses, and the lack of feats made for very limited ability to customize your characters, but it had some truly great campaign settings like Spelljammer.
@rurik36 Feats are just a way to gain more bonuses for your character, call them skills but there just more ways of getting bonuses a character does not deserve at least early in any game.
You gotta earn it to be it, as far as customizing characters, 2ed is actually great for that they just do not offer a bunch of unearned bonuses right away in the game. To get powerful bonuses you must game with the character, raise them up levels where you earn such powers ect ect.
@CondorDM Oh yes, that +2 to will saves is really ever so useful at early levels. (Sarcasm.) Feats don't give you that much of an extra advantage early on, you don't even get access to the better feats until you're at least around level 10. It's not as if you just open up the player's handbook and say "I want the feat that will give me +10 to hit." And you still have to earn those feats anyway, at most you start with three feats, and that's only if you're a human fighter, everyone else gets 1.
@rurik36 Anywho stop debating stuff i am not even arguing as if i am making a case for it(when i am not),
If you so badly want to look like your on a high chair and winning a debate, go have a real debate, nock down the other sides actual case in the debate then enjoy the high chair.
@rurik36 *gives 12 thousand Cthulhu awesome points for the minsc reference*
My man! at last someone who understands that Role play is the real core of DnD!
Balance Bugs me. a Wizard is supposed to suck at the start but be a god later. and unable to take hits.
i have modified 3.5 to the point it is HEAVY on RP. You wanna cast magic missile? right, chant some (fake) latin and describe your hand motions. this is NOT a video game where you can just press a button and boom, magic.
I am playin D&D since 8 or 9 years n i have always played 3-3.5 edition and i find it great. I heard 4th edition was like world of warcraft?? Still ill try it one day. But what i dislike with 3-3.5 edition is the game is really unbalanced, race, class n items can make you almost invincible. I am a DM n when i find a rules useless or 2 much unbalanced i just threw it up n my players fuckin panic n say's theses are the rules u have 2 follow them n i respond fuck u i am the dm XD
All faults of D&D4 I viewed w/detachment save one. In the 4E description of Sigil, the Lady speaks. It's a single line to make her sound badass and explain the factions absence. It's cheesy. It damages the character. There should be factions. The Lady of Pain never speaks. Her mysteriousness makes her badass.
re: Magic items: They're in the player's guide because players are assumed to kit themselves out with new magical items on a regular basis.
However, they can't actually use anything that amounts to more than a very tiny change in power, which sums up the curve I see in 4th edition. You're always gaining power, but at a very measured, controlled, prescribed pace.
Unless you ignore a lot of the rules, 4th edition is always balanced. May as well be a videogame with a live human narrator. Meh, imo
I remember those halcyon days of E. Gary Gygax hardbound books with the orange spine,,, after 2nd edition the system failed,,, I played A D&D since 1985,,, and I am thankful the current system is so terrible,,, it means I won't be forking over all them platinum pieces on books,,,
The choices in third edition are practically made for you EVERY SINGLE LEVEL with preset abilities. 4th edition every level you go up you make lots of choices for your character and they actually become INDIVUALIZED! No two characters are the same. The game has not changed just the rules. 3rd edition melee classes were B-O-R-I-N-G. In 4th edition melee classes are actually FUN!!!! Your argument is stupid, uneducated and totally untrue, plz delete it for invalidity...
As with any RPG system, there are pros and cons, especially when one compares it to other systems (in this case, D&D4e VS previous D&D).
I was expecting you to spew a bunch of troll bullshit, which a lot people have done (look at all the trolls in the comments below). However, despite your slight biased towards AD&D, you gave a fair review. :D
I've played AD&D and D&D4e... they're both good in their own respect.
I'd rather play AD&D 2nd Edition any day. I could write a novel about what is wrong with 4th edition but I just don't care enough about this flawed game system to do so. THEY NERFED DROW, BLAURGH!!!! Levitation is clearly too powerful, but read a fucking Deva. Read a fucking Dragonborn. This game is NOT balanced.
I agree! I'm an Orthodox Gamer, and I still have one Orthodox DM around and we think they have over-thought D&D and loaded it down with too many details.
3rd/3.5/4th are not dnd, adnd is real dnd, wotc made a crap game after they bought dnd and just you the name dnd to title there game, in the end they did nothing more then poison dnd gaming.
yeah, the british guys were so much better. its actualy ironic how people say that dnd is for nerds who dont get married even the though the guy who made the game is married!!!! lolz
I still feel 2nd edition is great all these new versions are just money hungry ,popping out new rule books at random to snatch more dollars as ive heard and watched in many different videos . 2nd edition could be played with just 3 books and your imagination yes they made many different accessories but it was always stated they could add to your campaign but weren't necessary the new editions make players feel they need new books to have the strongest class/race combo of the month..
Most of the complaints I hear in these videos seem to be related to really poor dming. Like the 12 skill check thing? why would you do that?
If I were DM you'd have to RP your diplomacy or bluff then at a deciding point you roll your check... the check is just to make sure your character isn't doing things based on your player skill instead of it's own skill.
A character with 0 bluff skill shouldn't be able to bluff well just because you can. You should still have to RP the bluff first.
As for the pigeon holing complaint.... what's the difference? If you made a wisdom and charisma based barbarian in 3.x who used darts, cloth armor, had shitty dex/str/and con and put all his skill points in knowledge skills.. he'd be useless.
You were just as pigeon holed.. they just made it not at all transparent to help guide new players... doesn't mean you HAVE to do what they say. You can take INT for example and multiclass wizard to be a magical fighter.
@Pineconefacenose Agreed, 100%. If a player RPs a good bluff, he still needs to check to see if his character has a 'tell' or not. 4th ed is just dulled down tripe, plain and simple. Pathfinder is fantastic.
Most of the complaints I've heard have just been about DMing... it's an RPG! If you dont like a rule... change it! (ie: give racial bonuses to different types of thievery skills, axes pierce armour better and have a chance of getting stuck, etc). As for skill checks, we still have to roleplay the diplomacy as well as make the roll.
Yeah, my character (I play 2nd edition) just recently got his platemail and I made that character a few weeks ago! I also recently just got my first magic weapon. What's cool is that my character talked to a priest for the god of fire who offered to make me a magic obsidian sword! But I have to retrieve special granite from the Underdark in Drow territory.
I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons for around six year and I can say that I enjoy both d20 and the 4e system. I've played a lot more 4e as of late, as it's what's easiest to pick up and play. I've taught completely clueless people how to play 4e, while it takes muuuuch longer to teach someone who plays White Wolf to learn d20.
After these years playing 4e, I'd say that it's the casual game, while d20 is the edition for hardcore gamers. I prefer d20, but 4e is still all right
love the review so far, and where the /hell/ did you get that amazing shirt? haha ide wear that so often, i love shirts like that, or the black ones with just plain white print that have inside jokes only nerds know. But yes good review so far, im using this to help sway whether i get the version :D
I'm a little surprised you said you'd rather play 4th then 3rd, but that's fine. I'm used to 3.5 and I love it, imperfect as it is.
I just thought that 4th does feel very sterilized and pick up and play rather then actually role playing: most of it is based on a simple build for a character that's good at combat and maybe some skills. It just doesn't feel as there's as much life, and I felt dissapointed by that. I really wanted to love 4th, but I can't even get myself to make a character.
Breakdown and make a character, try it and see what its about, how it really plays, dont let critics kill a game that you may actually like. Dont judge a book by its cover, literally.
I tried man, I really, -really- tried to do it. Forced almost. I even started optimistic about it and it just... went downhill from there. I can't do it, I just feel cheated about it all for some reason...
I agree the random is awesome. I have ran DnD for years. This is an easy game but I also have a tie on items. Buff wands and swords but hard to get to. But putting the magic items in the book is because I hated hand them the buff if they take the feats to make items.
Respectfully, I love that the magic items went into the players handbook rather then the DMG. But my group usually stayed in "the sweet spot" of 6th-10th campaigns.
Just passing by. I have played D&D for over 30 years, since before 1st ed. Balance is a myth, only for selfish people who say they want it but actually cannot stand another person rewarded for good roleplaying. When statisical "balance" comes before or totally ousts intelligence, imagination, creativity, and wonder...why call it a roleplaying game. Thank you, I liked and agreed with almost all of the review.
Clue me in, are we talking about the basic purple box, the blue box (which I had) from 1978 or the vintage small white box (which I saw once but they wanted $150 for)?
4th Edition is basically a tabletop version of Gauntlet. It's dumbed-down hack-and-slash that lacks the depth of its predecessors.
I'm surprised the rules don't encourage the DM to bellow "YOUR CHARACTER NEEDS FOOD BADLY!" in a deep voice, whenever your character is low on hit points.
Combat should certainly be a big part of D&D...but it should never be the ONLY part. I think I'll stick with 3.5 and earlier editions.
agreed. although there are things i do like about 4th edition. at will spells. i love at will spells. a 15th level wizard can cast magic missile using his dick as the somatic component,i think earlier editions of dnd should have at will spells.
4th edition = Oblivion/MechWarrior 5.... It has been dumbed down for the consoletards who panic if theres more then 6 buttons to press.. let alone 6 skills...
I get this sad feeling when looking at 4th edition that they just tried to convert MMO archetypes : Tank, singel target DPS, AOE DPS, Ranged DPS, Buffer and Healer and combat to a pen and paper game.
it's devolution to see Pen & Papper help build the MMO to then see the MMO rebuild the Pen and Papper game. Most of the time players balance out the group naturaly but if we where missing some thing, no sweat. but now the characters seem "too" codependent.
I thought this was an intelligent, overly negative review, but I only had one real thing to bring up:
Balance is actually an ideal. Your problem is that the game designers built balance by making all characters similar. You're unhappy because it's boring, not because it's balanced. You even bring up where it isn't balanced (mentioning that some choices are sub-optimal, which denotes imbalance).
A good game (IMHO) that shows balance but isn't boring is Mutants & Masterminds 2E.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said and while I'm still interested in seeing where they take it I'm not holding my breath. I'm really waiting on the new Dark Sun book to see if they can push the system to be interesting.
I never played AD&D though I knew about it. I started exactly as 3rd Edition came out and so for me 3/3.5 is wonderful. Another thing the kills me about 4th is the poor quality of books compared to 3rd.
Nice review. My group has been playing 2nd Ed, we've never progressed, so pardon my ignorance... Is it possible, through playtesting with your group, to be able to "change the rules", to allow for more variance? For example, the specialization of wizards. Can the rules be changed to allow for an invoker, and to have the benefits the were allowed in previous editions? Or, is everything so linked that changing one rule create a chain effect of having to change many rules? Thank you.
@alcousi 4E has more customization than 3.5. The sole exception is spell lists for Wizards and such. 4E has tons of options, 3.5 still makes you auto-attack most of the time.
The difference between the games is 3.5 tries to use the rules to create a simulation, where 4E uses the rules to construct a heroic fantasy.
@Thaumatolgist i know its been five months now but i never check back for replies on my comments...lol...anyways i went back to check 4th ed recently and you are right,i think i prefer a game with realism than heroic fantasy thats my problem,4th edition isint bad at all, if you have a good adventure and great role players it can be really fun i am sure,but spellcasters are boring to me in 4th and i dont like what they did to skills.But if i get invited to a 4th edition game i'll gladly try
I like D&D games but from what you've described the customization of characeters is dumbed down so I don't think it'd be that great for me.
I love customizing, I spend hours of the game just creating my character - I spend 4x as much time choosing skills, races, classes and items than I ever do running around and fighting XD
I don't have any group and suffer from very strong D&D abstinenses, so that just to keep myself alive I make countless Characters on Sheets.. The madness never ends xD
@CarutotehDivine i am getting to that point, while working on my own game i start to miss dnd, but not as to say mine is bad but because dnd was my first, and you always remember your first.
i've never tried d&d but i am curious to exploring new games (i already play warhammer and 40k and im trying out flames of war) so were would be a good place to start?
@sureshot73A if your looking for an easy rail of DND hit 4E... but if your looking for something to really have fun with hit 2ndE or AD&D, i myself go for 3.5 i loved it to death but some feel it is to open... but if you ask me thats why i loved it.
thanks for the review. ive been playing D&D on and off for 20 years now ,4ed comes across as world of warcraft but with pen and paper i dont think 4ed is being honest to its forebearers.thanks for the review !
On the downside battles now are a number crunching exercise which became even worse with the 4th edition rules. In my opinion battles are a part of the storytelling and should be resolved fast so they don't take you out of the story. Now it seems more like the story is meant to give you an excuse to spend 80% of the game doing battle. If it's just that why even begin to bother with one? I have the impression that D&D has been de-evolved into a mere table top wargame. Pretty sad.
... For AD&D they brought out tomes the "fighter guilde" which offered you knights without having a need for introducing them as such. Another change that came with the 3rd edition that I liked was the fact that the combat and rule system was somewhat updated. I never really liked the (THAC0) idea which worked, but seemed unnecessarily cumbersome.
Being an old school D&D player myself, I have to agree with many things Spoony says. AD&D still seems to be the "true" game rather than it's successors. When the 3rd edition came out, there were many changes I liked, as for example the "feat" system for it allowed to make any class special in the way you would build it up. You could do so to support the way you were intending to role play it. What else is a knight but a fighter with a title, a certain set of skills and who behaves a certain way?
see i dont like that if you want to brake down a door so the guy who has 18 str rolls bad so now you can just roll and roll and get it down thats bull if you cant do it you cant do it
if you need a 20 and 5 guys roll thats dumb thats 5 rolls on a 20 the team need to pick the best one for it and help him one roll and thats it
Actually, skill challenges can be very lifelike. I have my characters roleplay AFTER performing skill checks so they don't just say, "I will make a diplomacy check to convince the king's guard that what I am doing is important" and after the player rolls d20 I, as DM, say "Ok, well tell me how that happened; roleplay." But hey, I'm a n00b. All I have is a 4e starter set, the Arcane Towers tiles, and some minis. I still need the core rulebooks. Other than that, I agree, they are kinda stale.
If you MUST follow the rules go ahead, but if you use your imagination and don't go by the rules it's fun it can be zany and crazy exciting without having to take an hour figuring out whether or not you can do this or that.
One thing I do like about the D&D game is that you dont HAVE to follow all the rules. The rules tell you basically how to play but you and youre playing group can manipulate them to how you think they should be played. Its really up to the DM. I have a neighbor that when they first started playing, they classified an encounter as when you engage with an enemy. So a fighter can use an encounter power for every new enemy he engaged with. Thats just an example. Play how you feel comfortable
1. No more random magical item tables. Players choose what they want to get and DM's award them that. Also buying magical items is much more common in 4e.
2. Rituals are spellcasting power for any class. Rogues/fighters/wizards and so on can now raise dead allies in battle. This was done so you no longer have to run a cleric in a group.
3. Everything has a power source. In walks in the fighter with martial power source "magic".
4. Gods are not super powered killable beings. lol?
I sorta disagree with all the issues, such as "samie" and ritual duration times, which are always put in the negative, as DM, they can decide to override, and even go back to similar rules to 3rd edition, such as using knock a lot quicker. set limits on characters and what they can do to get rid of this "samie" feeling. the PH only gives rules, but everyone knows that the DM is the ultimate golden rule maker, not the book.
Plate mail means that you lose out on your dexterity bonus.
Magic Items need to be in the PHB because if you are starting out as a higher level character, a player needs to know what the magic items they are starting out do. What they were going for was having players only need the players handbook.
Safe? You should go pick Keep of the Shadowfell and run that against 5 level one parrty members. My DM has to omit a good deal of content from that adventure in order for us to have some sort of shot and not dieing every fight.
4ed doesn't provide for a lot of creativity on the player's behalf as well in 4ed there're the staple class/race combonations and if you didn't happen to pick one of them, then you're going to be gimped for a good long time.
I have been gaming since 1976 -- started with OD&D. And I simply can't stand 4e. Luckily there are so many other systems out there it simply doesn't matter, but I think games don't need to be so combat-fixated as D&D anymore.
4TH edition is crap. I've played it, given it several chances and it's like playing a childs game meant for a computer. Much like playing WoW on table top. It took out pretty much the one thing that makes any game fun for the players, skills. Skill based games are always better. WoTC has failed to deliver yet again. 3.5 is the games best version. Some say it replaces role playing with dice rolling but that is not true. At least, not for skille role players. 4th edition is an epic fail.
4th edition is an elegant simplification of what 3.5 was with a hell of alot deeper combat system and where everyone in the party can jump into a battle straight out level 1. you dont wanna teach a new player that their lvl 1 wizard with 4 HP that they cant jump into battle and when they run out of magic missle, they are forced to throw daggers. 4e past level 5 gets much deeper, and characters become more and more different.
Whatever happened to those classic AD&D monster manuals, with the bug bears, gold, platinum, tiamat, copper dragons, devils from all planes of hell like asmodeus, baalzebub, pit fiends, etc.. remember those simple but cool b&w drawings.
I do not know much about 4th edition rules, nor do I really know much about DnD overall as I've only ever played crpgs using those rules and obviously those don't generally have the full bag.
But, well, from what you're saying, outside the rituals and such, it sounds like the perfect system for a pc rpg, simple but not too much, etc.
I am 25, and I have been playing D&D for 20 years. I was able to try out 4th edition, and I found some things good and some things bad, but it was overall still a fun experience. My eladrin wizard felt very different than my 3.5 sun elf wizard, and I heard similar comments from other friends playing familiar character concepts. It is still open to modification and adaptation and fun, and fun is the whole point of any game.
I understand alot of your points. But i think it was good for them to take such a basic course. Alot of Role Playing is improvised and house ruled.. D&D has always been a game that is open to modification. Look at the forums. Lots of people post homebrew classes/races. They simplified everything to allow new players an easier time getting use to the game. If you are a veteran in the D&D world, you know how everything works. Its not too hard to, lets say, split up the thievery skil.
Stupid? I think it's a nice change to the healing system since it doesn't force a cleric to prepare tons of healing spells and making potions and scrolls.
That isn't true though, since most characters can only use one healing surge by them self during combat and that takes a whole turn. It is very helpful to have a cleric, I've seen a group play without a cleric and they did not do well and had to rest much more than they should of.
It isn't really the healing surges' function that bothers me, it's nice and all if you don't have a cleric or potions, but it really takes a chuck out of the cleric's usefulness since their heals use up healing surges anyways. And I know D&D isn't about perfected realism or anything, but healing surges basically means you could be beaten nearly to death and fully recover from just sitting down for a few minutes. That and potions are pretty much worthless now since they also use healing surges.
No, it doesn't take away from the clerics because you usually can't spend healing surges without a cleric. Normally you can only spend one healing surge a combat and that'll take your whole turn. A cleric, warlord, or bard will have abilities that will use your healing surges to heal you. It actually makes it harder because a cleric might not be able to heal you because you might be out of healing surges.
And to my former comment I am more about inbalance than forced equality. Like If you read about wizards in novels of Salvatore or Greenwood - you know they are top-tiers motherfuckers who play doctor Manhatan at some point. They need to go through shit-tier first though, but the time they traded playing useless slob for half a game now pays off.
YuriPRIMEpoland 4 days ago
this is 100% accurate
TheHuntress144 1 week ago
I finally bit the bullet & tried 4e. I am old school. After playing a bit. 4e, with both it's good > bad aspects turned out to be a lot of fun to play. Every player gets into the game, and gets to shine. It's not a perfect system, none are, but it is good times. I will be playing 4e instead of 3.5 now. I am glad I was challegended by a young guy in the LGS to try it.
inlife9 2 months ago
i think i understand what wizards of the coast are doing. they're trying to make the game more appealing to younger people, the stupid teenagers that run if anything has math in it. they're simplifying it and making it more balanced so teenagers and young adults, who are very self-centred, don't feel cheated cuz the person next to them has a better character than their's. it's all so that way DnD will have a future, so people will be playing in 20 years.
014matt 3 months ago 2
I agree with alot of this, but a few things rub me the wrong way. Most of these issues you have can be solved with a good DM running the game. I'm a DM, and would NEVER let a player start off with best armor. i almost always throw my players into a dungeon buckass naked and they have to earn it themselves. Also I have my players roll their scores, which is a feature in Phb1. so not all characters are the same, and i disagree otherwise.
TheJediGuru 4 months ago
2nd rule of DMing if you are NOT getting characters with seriously low hp then you are doing something wrong
doombybbr 4 months ago
the skill challenges should only require a single check on the STUPID(and weak) guards, if they aren't stupid diplomacy will fail and they will still be there, you can always kill them anyways.
doombybbr 4 months ago
oh... 1st rule of DMing, if your players have enemies that are easy, throw in a hard one, also if they are really good players, they still get similar xp as it should be based on amount of challange.
doombybbr 4 months ago
also knocking on doors is a 5 second thing
doombybbr 4 months ago
Since I started on 4th edition I decided to revisit this review and I have to agree with a lot of points Spoony is making here. Although I do like that Wizards have spells that they can repeatedly cast. I also like that all the classes have the same frame to work with but they also gotta come up with more spells that do effects. It feels to me that every class only do damage and some minor effect instead of dazing, stunning and the like.
Langsorigingaleia 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus saves from the guilt of sin by faith in his shed blood. That is why he came to earth, to die on the cross for our sins so we could go to heaven through faith in his blood. Repent of your sins and ask Jesus to come into your heart. Once you are saved from your sins, you are saved forever. Faith in Jesus is the only way to heaven. If you die in your sins you will burn in Hell and the Lake of Fire for all eternity. God bless.
GamersForJesus 6 months ago
MOOSE
gigawarman12 6 months ago in playlist ANGRY PEOPLE 2
If you have the patience, this game commentary is a good way to see how 4E plays:
ht tp://w w w.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/242305-running-player-commentary-pcats-d-d-4th-edition-campaign-heroic-tier-finished.html
cavalier973 6 months ago
very good review.especialy seeing as it was off the cuff.
ripedreality 7 months ago
I think that weapons and magic items should be in both so that the players could know how to use them and dms could know what to use as treasure
skyguy351 7 months ago
Ya but the problem is with plate armor is that a level 4 fighter could be the same strength as a level 19 fighter if he had plate armor. Now you add half your level to your AC so it seems more realistic that u have expeireince defending yourself
skyguy351 7 months ago
I'm sticking with 3.5/Pathfinder. Calling 4 sterile is both the best description and reason why it's not for me. For people who prefer 4e then good for you, but it leaves me cold.
ShedBogart7 8 months ago
realllly cool review!!!
deadling13 8 months ago
Magic items are another way for the player to customize the character, just like feats. Having the DM decide what your character should be is the same as you just not making a character. There are no carved in stone rules for the DM. Skill challenges don't mean 'roll a check to succeed'. The PCs need to role play and then roll to see if their character did it well enough.
OlderSnake 8 months ago
lol tape
JamesFrizell 10 months ago
T.T....i want to play sooooooooo bad.........Im new to the game and ive been playing on 3.5.......i went to school and im far far away from my DM....
VideoAqua1 10 months ago
While i agree with most of your points. I happen to enjoy 4th edition very much due to the fact that i dont play very often and neither does the group i usually play with, therefore it makes things easier to setup and start playing immediately. However with that being said i wish i had more time set aside to play because if i did i probably wouldnt like 4th edition as much either
shermellow 11 months ago
Good review...sadly this is the direction of rping...make everything balanced and fair...blah...where is the satisfaction of out-thinking the npcs/dm if everything is balanced? Balance is for the unimaginative whiner who wants an easy 'win'.
I bet thats why its written this way. In the days of yore (old fogie that I am) new players would ask how you win this game. We'd give the answer "you don't".
The new game is directed toward peeps who want a quantifible win.
Zzaztur 11 months ago
@Zzaztur Right, because in AD&D and 3rd Edition, when a mage hit about 10-12th level, the fighters became decorations for the wizard, while he blows everything away by himself. Balance is also to keep players who want to play fighters to have something to do instead of watch others outshine them.
TheJayde 9 months ago
@TheJayde Funny viewpoint, although not happenin' in any game I've played or run.
True, mid to high lvl wiz's get decent damaging spells, but its the figher-type who shines in the damage department due to multiple attacks.
Fighters always out-dealt damage on a round by round basis.
Aside from disarm, fighters don't have to worry much about their attacks being interrupted. Also a series of attacks by a fighter is not as expensive as a component, scroll or restoring charges on a wand or staff
Zzaztur 9 months ago
@Zzaztur HAHAHAHAHA. Okay, sure. You make a 12th level 3.5 fighter, I'll make a 12th level 3.5 wizard, and we'll see which one wins.
(hint: the wizard is going to win 95% of the time)
dark7element 8 months ago
Good review. I personally think, though, that you and most of the people who posted a comment here is just too much attached to the rules. I mean rules are important of course, they create the structure of the game, but i don't think they're as important as you think. If you think a ritual should take 10 seconds then just make it take 10 sec, do not stick with the rules too much. D&D is great because you can make your own rules, already-written rules are just a starting point.
ledkjy 11 months ago
Being 18 I picked up 3.5 from a friend in like.... 4th grade, He always ran in depth non generic games, and encouraged his players to make non generic, story based characters. When 4e came out I looked at it as a way to introduce my friends to D&D (from the world of online rpgs) and show them how they can do so much more in this game. I always loved the story of D&D and the fact I could blurt something out in character and face possible problem. Rules are rules, either way its still fun to me.
cryzen 11 months ago
You know, I couldn't articulate it before, but as soon as I heard "sterile", that was exactly the feeling I got when I was flipping through a 4th ed, like that pleasant DnD taste had been washed out of the mouth, even the pages looked whitewashed.
The sad thing is, though I'll miss 3.5, the whole point of 4th is accessibility to previously non-DnD players, and that's probably all I'll be able to get my friends to pick up.
TheWyrmofIron 11 months ago 2
Nice review. I like 4e but would rather play 3.5 any day. The only thing that gets me, it how Wizards of the coast seem to be putting 3.5 down now. Like it wasn't really all that great a game to begin with and they have this new shinny goof 4e D&D game that you should play.
ThamiorX 1 year ago 6
WOW-you have completely read my mind-magic items are supposed legendary and mysterious, and not for the players to read about. And whats with kobolds having 30 hp? After 22 years of D&D today I ran my first fouth...its ok. My players died at the end of the 1st level adventure because the adventure had 3 skeletons with 45 hp ea, a necromancer with 40, and a hulking zombie with 70. The hulking zombie could kill a player with one hit with its melee attack--we may be headed back to 3rd
JohnnySilver78 1 year ago
I find it amazing people dare say characters in 4th edition are sterilized and restrictive. Have you actually SEEN how characters work in 3.5???
Play a fighter or a barbarian in 3.5 and one in 4. See which one is more streamlined, restrictive and boring.
landovers 1 year ago
"streamlining" 3.5 = inviting the fat stupid WoW-kid next door over to play ...
MALKton 1 year ago
and two years later it has evolved a lot better
OutcastProductioninc 1 year ago
I think you gave it a fair review, and I believe that your last comment was the most important. Houserules and strong DMs, no matter what edition you play, make or break a D&D experience. One thing you might have mentioned that I noticed, however, is that the streamlined rules make rule lawyering a thing of the past. Fewer "skills" (and rules to govern them) encourages more lively roleplay and DM discretion than 3e (I've never played 2e, unfortunately.)
mafelton 1 year ago
reason magic items are in the players hand book... No one feels like buying a 3rd fucking book for magic items...
bud389 1 year ago
D&D 4.0 = D&D for dummies.
somethingfurry 1 year ago
I like the feel of 3.5 pretty well still though I've never really played 4.0 yet.
But this was a good review. I was curious to see the specs of it rather than hearing the sumed up version that people keep telling me. hah
I am a loyal 3.5 DM. haha
Oh yeah, what are they going to do with the monk class?
and another thing, I've heard rumor that 4.0 stopped printing it's DM guide. Is that ture?
FrozenGoods101 1 year ago
I'm one of the people who can safely say "I do not fear change". I've started with Classical D&D, tried AD%D1st, went through the whole AD&D2nd and 2.5 era, and found my way to D&D3 and 3.5. In all those changes, I hardly had any problem adapting and, in fact, 3.5 still is my favorite version (with some homebrew changes, though).
The 4th edition is the ONLY one I can't play. It's... not a RPG anymore. It's some sort of wargame. Good wargame, yes, but extremely disappointing as a RPG.
Eshlar 1 year ago 5
@Eshlar That's exactly what DM I used to play with said about 4th edition when I wanted to try DM once and asked which edition is better to use.
ALieN017 1 year ago
I would agree with you that the ritual system is completely pointless. I'm not a fan of the 4E combat system in general because if the feeling of "sameness" that you were previously talking about. There just isn't enough meat to the 4E system & for me personally.
matthewlane 1 year ago
so let me get this straight. the game is fun to play but only if your creative?
Billsthenamefirst 1 year ago
I feel this game is a different animal than the old D&D systems. Most people fear change. I do have issues with this game as well, but by design I find the "balanced" concept both good and bad. I find this game more of a mix of a minatures/role-playing game.
Designing adventuring teams is more like building sports team. Everybody has a position they need to play. I do feel that the role-playing idea has been removed but a good GM should be able to fix that.
balric1 1 year ago
Fourth edition completely ruins spell casters.
FoxPlant2006 1 year ago
"It feels very safe, and it's hard for you to die in this"
Bullhocky I had a party of first level characters nearly killed by a couple of goblins.
gatoneko 1 year ago
@gatoneko then you have some players who may need to either learn to count correctly, or players who need to stay awake during combat, which in 4E can be a problem.
matthewlane 1 year ago
@matthewlane No they are very good with math, and were wide awake. It's just that the monsters in 4th Edition have been pumped up to be pretty much on par with the players.
gatoneko 1 year ago
@gatoneko not unless your playing with "essential" stuff it hasn't. I'm not a fan because i have played & the lack of any real potential for death or permanent effects was one of the things that really shit me off about the system.
matthewlane 1 year ago
@matthewlane It depends. If you are playing with the full suite of options, PCs have a lot of advantages over monsters which haven't seen anywhere near the exponential increases in options/power. But if you play mostly with the PHB and don't keep up with the errata, it can be challenging if you do not fully optimize, or have a few bad die rolls.
Thaumatolgist 1 year ago
I think the player's handbook is to be used as a guideline. What's to prevent you from starting a character off with much less gold or giving your Fighter plate armor proficiency or the DM from saying that a Goblin Minion has 2 hp instead on just 1 hp? I thought D&D was about using your imagination. It can be as interesting and challenging as you want it to be. It's not like the bald dude from WotC is going to barge into your session and start saying "No, you can't play that way".
ziochicho 1 year ago
What about a game system that allows you to develop your character as a person; no class defined and we must find/join/develop our own class, which also develops as we (the players) want it to in relation to our characters innate attributes?
impactorfactor 1 year ago
I've found skill challenges great for non-combat action scenes or investigation/navigation scenes. With some role-playing thrown in the ones I've played and ran have all been incredibly fun and helped add an element to those types of scenes that generally just get a "Roll your skill, ok after a few minutes you catch the orc that was racing a canoe down the river". For social encounters they do break down though if not run well and do indeed feel forced and artificial.
Jimalcoatl 1 year ago
Great review! This guy is spot on. I also agree with him that AD&D is better than 3rd or 4th ed. My group still plays AD&D (2.5, w/ Spells and Magic, Combat and Tactics, etc.) and I wouldn't change it at all. You can make unique characters, not cookie cutters like the newer editions. If you like AD&D, play it! There're plenty of books out there still. Don't play something new, just because it's new. New does not = better.
Bruhmm2112 1 year ago
oy spoony whats your opinion on Mutant? (the rolplaying game)
Pyromania37 1 year ago
No, it's not D&D. The most explanation is Hasbro had a game, Magic Sword, that they didn't decide to release until after they bought WoTC...at which point, they had the D&D license, and so slathered D&D-esque words on Magic Sword and called it a day. This is why 2 years after the fact they're changing rules (eg, Magic Missile) to make it more like D&D.
So no, not D&D...but 4e is still a quite playable game.
Doom314 1 year ago
this may be out of place but does anyone else see how 4th edition is tooled to make a better video game but not tabletop game?
BillyCauseyjr 1 year ago 3
I like that characters powers are different. In other versions you just gain x power at level. Makes all same class characters the same. I also like how skills are handled.
MidnightSun009 1 year ago
It sums my feelings up to say "4th edition is a good game, but it is not DnD." I will still be a fan of 3.5 edition just due to my love of character optimization.
jfhalshsfdalkj 1 year ago
I do agree with you about the magic item table for sure. Everyone I play with also takes turns being GM and it gets really annoying when they have that kind of knowledge. Some think that they are "experts" and end up arguing with the GM.
Then again, I employ a bag of holding in a portable hole method if someone argues too much. Buh bye :)
audallas841 1 year ago
Well done. I had similar reactions to a lot of the elements of 4E. The game has fun elements to it, but straight out of the book it feels like it's missing out on the improvisational legroom that my best DnD moments tended to stem from, like using spells in weird ways to solve puzzles, that sort of thing.
nutherefurlong 1 year ago
I played a wizard in 4E and I didn't die once, five hours of straight playing, I got so unbalanced encounters that in 3E with a wizard I would have been destroyed in the first one. 3.5 FTW
TheAmazingLiberalist 1 year ago 3
@TheAmazingLiberalist I'll bet every one of those encounters had magic in them too!
ZachariasClub 1 year ago
"no middle ground" says it all; see the kind of thinking used in 4 is different then the earlier eds. ...think about it, -ad&d & 3 to me are ....? ...more advanced game and thought processes
willtrib 1 year ago 2
I think WotC thought it was time for a big change. I mean 30+ years, you cant NOT venture off.
CaramelDancen 1 year ago
the thing that really ruined things for me (as dm), was when 3rd ed swapped to challenge ratings...
All of a sudden it became a chore to calculate xp at the end of the battle,
and.... It had the feeling that higher lvl players got 'penalized' xp
Great review.
CamRaiD 1 year ago
all classes can use rituals with 2 feats. not just wizard and cleric...
kyarri2 1 year ago
House rules is the key word. Discard what you don't like. I don't let my characters start with ANY equipment or ANY spells they want. I give them a limited list of what is available in their town/city. Not every little town has a magician who has a fireball spell, you have to find it and learn it. Not every tiny hamlet has full plate armor for sale or even a smithy who can make it. Make the characters work with what they have and don't make everything available to them. This creates better play.
motherspitchfork 1 year ago 3
@keithblabbermouth You don't need rules for those.
Thaumatolgist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rurik36 Anywho stop debating stuff i am not even arguing as if i am making a case for it(when i am not),
If you so badly want to look like your on a high chair and winning a debate, go have a real debate, nock down the other sides actual case in the debate then enjoy the high chair.
Until then get over yourself.
CondorDM 1 year ago
While I agree about the magic items section, how many times did you play a game at a higher level than 1? Now count how many times you started with gear the DM gave you in those games and I'll bet you have the exact same number. Although, I do agree this is taking away the mystery, I believe the only reason you would want to look at them for more than just a glance is to A) look at kick ass stuff you'll get in the future (making them more awesome) or B) picking out gear for a higher character.
TheOtogi 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
3rd and up make it easier for bad gamers to game, in the real dnd(tsr's) if you sucked you could not hide it and would be filtered out fast), supporting bad gamers to game only poisons a gaming community, you may put thumbs down on this one but i am right and that is fact!.
CondorDM 1 year ago
Thumbsed down. You're wrong, and that is a fact. 4th Ed. blows, but 3rd and 3.5 and now especially pathfinder have a lot of redeeming qualities. If you're playing with bad gamers, they'll get killed off a lot, and they'll get tired of rolling new characters. And if they're a real asshole(like yourself), you just stop inviting them to join games. Look at that, I just solved two problems!
Damianlkh 1 year ago
@CondorDM You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. There's more to RPG's than just the G for game, the role playing is just as important. Just because a person is bad with the statistical aspects of D&D doesn't mean they can't be an incredible role player, conversely a person who can min/max the hell out of characters and have the most powerful wizard of all time could be a terrible role player. Both are good skills to have, but in different circumstances.
rurik36 1 year ago
@rurik36
Simply put, you can be bad at dming and dm 2ed but the game will always show you for what you are. #rd and up helps you mask this problem so bad dms and even bad players can come in and scam staying around long enough to spoil games ectr.
After they are refused in all other area then you see them joining a variety of others systems and bringing crazy bad habits from when they were playing wotc rpg.
Wotc so called dnd is a poison, period.
CondorDM 1 year ago
@CondorDM And how exactly do you define a "bad DM?" Someone who's bad at number crunching? Again, there's more to an RPG than just numbers, I don't care how skilled someone is at working the system, if they can't role play well I don't want to play with them. If all I wanted was dice rolling and combat I'd play the war games that D&D was originally based on, but that's not what I'm interested in. I want epic tales of good and evil, swords and spells, rangers and miniature giant space hamsters.
rurik36 1 year ago
@rurik36 Ok this whole "lack of rp and focus on combat" your talking about as if this is what i support is bs, your debating against something i have not pitched or made a case for in anyway.
You can argue with yourself on that topic.
Of course character developed, rp + hack and slash make a good game, not one more then the other 50/50, myself i give you what the situation calls for regardless but offer rp and combat and other things.
3rd and up sucks and it shows.
CondorDM 1 year ago
@CondorDM I never said that's what you considered to be a bad DM, that's why I asked you how you define one. And 3rd and 4th sucking are opinions, not a fact. Every edition of D&D has it's strong points and it's weak points. AD&D for instance was unintuitive with lower numbers being more desirable for it's version of armour class and attack bonuses, and the lack of feats made for very limited ability to customize your characters, but it had some truly great campaign settings like Spelljammer.
rurik36 1 year ago
@rurik36 Feats are just a way to gain more bonuses for your character, call them skills but there just more ways of getting bonuses a character does not deserve at least early in any game.
You gotta earn it to be it, as far as customizing characters, 2ed is actually great for that they just do not offer a bunch of unearned bonuses right away in the game. To get powerful bonuses you must game with the character, raise them up levels where you earn such powers ect ect.
Seen 3rd and up, they suck.
CondorDM 1 year ago
@CondorDM Oh yes, that +2 to will saves is really ever so useful at early levels. (Sarcasm.) Feats don't give you that much of an extra advantage early on, you don't even get access to the better feats until you're at least around level 10. It's not as if you just open up the player's handbook and say "I want the feat that will give me +10 to hit." And you still have to earn those feats anyway, at most you start with three feats, and that's only if you're a human fighter, everyone else gets 1.
rurik36 1 year ago
@rurik36 Anywho stop debating stuff i am not even arguing as if i am making a case for it(when i am not),
If you so badly want to look like your on a high chair and winning a debate, go have a real debate, nock down the other sides actual case in the debate then enjoy the high chair.
Until then get over yourself.
CondorDM 1 year ago
@rurik36 *gives 12 thousand Cthulhu awesome points for the minsc reference*
My man! at last someone who understands that Role play is the real core of DnD!
Balance Bugs me. a Wizard is supposed to suck at the start but be a god later. and unable to take hits.
i have modified 3.5 to the point it is HEAVY on RP. You wanna cast magic missile? right, chant some (fake) latin and describe your hand motions. this is NOT a video game where you can just press a button and boom, magic.
JSHADOWM 1 year ago
I enjoyed watching your review. Looking forward to the next one!
Pensador 1 year ago
I am playin D&D since 8 or 9 years n i have always played 3-3.5 edition and i find it great. I heard 4th edition was like world of warcraft?? Still ill try it one day. But what i dislike with 3-3.5 edition is the game is really unbalanced, race, class n items can make you almost invincible. I am a DM n when i find a rules useless or 2 much unbalanced i just threw it up n my players fuckin panic n say's theses are the rules u have 2 follow them n i respond fuck u i am the dm XD
GuardianoftheGods 1 year ago
Spoon!
All faults of D&D4 I viewed w/detachment save one. In the 4E description of Sigil, the Lady speaks. It's a single line to make her sound badass and explain the factions absence. It's cheesy. It damages the character. There should be factions. The Lady of Pain never speaks. Her mysteriousness makes her badass.
Kogerii 1 year ago
re: Magic items: They're in the player's guide because players are assumed to kit themselves out with new magical items on a regular basis.
However, they can't actually use anything that amounts to more than a very tiny change in power, which sums up the curve I see in 4th edition. You're always gaining power, but at a very measured, controlled, prescribed pace.
Unless you ignore a lot of the rules, 4th edition is always balanced. May as well be a videogame with a live human narrator. Meh, imo
Stromko 1 year ago
I remember those halcyon days of E. Gary Gygax hardbound books with the orange spine,,, after 2nd edition the system failed,,, I played A D&D since 1985,,, and I am thankful the current system is so terrible,,, it means I won't be forking over all them platinum pieces on books,,,
motelbill 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The choices in third edition are practically made for you EVERY SINGLE LEVEL with preset abilities. 4th edition every level you go up you make lots of choices for your character and they actually become INDIVUALIZED! No two characters are the same. The game has not changed just the rules. 3rd edition melee classes were B-O-R-I-N-G. In 4th edition melee classes are actually FUN!!!! Your argument is stupid, uneducated and totally untrue, plz delete it for invalidity...
Underleaf76 1 year ago
A good review.
As with any RPG system, there are pros and cons, especially when one compares it to other systems (in this case, D&D4e VS previous D&D).
I was expecting you to spew a bunch of troll bullshit, which a lot people have done (look at all the trolls in the comments below). However, despite your slight biased towards AD&D, you gave a fair review. :D
I've played AD&D and D&D4e... they're both good in their own respect.
UnderratedDoorman 2 years ago 35
I agree. This guy is good at explaining in 7 mintues what most gamers take an hour to say!
brianpadraic 1 year ago
I'd rather play AD&D 2nd Edition any day. I could write a novel about what is wrong with 4th edition but I just don't care enough about this flawed game system to do so. THEY NERFED DROW, BLAURGH!!!! Levitation is clearly too powerful, but read a fucking Deva. Read a fucking Dragonborn. This game is NOT balanced.
EnkiAnunaki 2 years ago
I agree! I'm an Orthodox Gamer, and I still have one Orthodox DM around and we think they have over-thought D&D and loaded it down with too many details.
brianpadraic 1 year ago
If you want the AD&D rules and don't like
4th edition is the Pathfinder stuff, mostly because they have great assories!
owenmcgarel 2 years ago
3rd/3.5/4th are not dnd, adnd is real dnd, wotc made a crap game after they bought dnd and just you the name dnd to title there game, in the end they did nothing more then poison dnd gaming.
CondorDM 2 years ago
yeah, the british guys were so much better. its actualy ironic how people say that dnd is for nerds who dont get married even the though the guy who made the game is married!!!! lolz
owenmcgarel 2 years ago
So true.
Stender84 1 year ago
I still feel 2nd edition is great all these new versions are just money hungry ,popping out new rule books at random to snatch more dollars as ive heard and watched in many different videos . 2nd edition could be played with just 3 books and your imagination yes they made many different accessories but it was always stated they could add to your campaign but weren't necessary the new editions make players feel they need new books to have the strongest class/race combo of the month..
fudgepacksack 2 years ago 2
Most of the complaints I hear in these videos seem to be related to really poor dming. Like the 12 skill check thing? why would you do that?
If I were DM you'd have to RP your diplomacy or bluff then at a deciding point you roll your check... the check is just to make sure your character isn't doing things based on your player skill instead of it's own skill.
A character with 0 bluff skill shouldn't be able to bluff well just because you can. You should still have to RP the bluff first.
Pineconefacenose 2 years ago
As for the pigeon holing complaint.... what's the difference? If you made a wisdom and charisma based barbarian in 3.x who used darts, cloth armor, had shitty dex/str/and con and put all his skill points in knowledge skills.. he'd be useless.
You were just as pigeon holed.. they just made it not at all transparent to help guide new players... doesn't mean you HAVE to do what they say. You can take INT for example and multiclass wizard to be a magical fighter.
Pineconefacenose 2 years ago
I agree completely with you. A barbarian in 3rd was a striker. He couldn't even read for fucks sake at first level.
DrMetropolis 1 year ago
@Pineconefacenose Agreed, 100%. If a player RPs a good bluff, he still needs to check to see if his character has a 'tell' or not. 4th ed is just dulled down tripe, plain and simple. Pathfinder is fantastic.
DarthTirith 2 years ago
Most of the complaints I've heard have just been about DMing... it's an RPG! If you dont like a rule... change it! (ie: give racial bonuses to different types of thievery skills, axes pierce armour better and have a chance of getting stuck, etc). As for skill checks, we still have to roleplay the diplomacy as well as make the roll.
opteryx33 2 years ago
Yeah, my character (I play 2nd edition) just recently got his platemail and I made that character a few weeks ago! I also recently just got my first magic weapon. What's cool is that my character talked to a priest for the god of fire who offered to make me a magic obsidian sword! But I have to retrieve special granite from the Underdark in Drow territory.
BlackMarshBrigand 2 years ago
I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons for around six year and I can say that I enjoy both d20 and the 4e system. I've played a lot more 4e as of late, as it's what's easiest to pick up and play. I've taught completely clueless people how to play 4e, while it takes muuuuch longer to teach someone who plays White Wolf to learn d20.
After these years playing 4e, I'd say that it's the casual game, while d20 is the edition for hardcore gamers. I prefer d20, but 4e is still all right
FiretreeBear 2 years ago
love the review so far, and where the /hell/ did you get that amazing shirt? haha ide wear that so often, i love shirts like that, or the black ones with just plain white print that have inside jokes only nerds know. But yes good review so far, im using this to help sway whether i get the version :D
kasakagegaara 2 years ago
I'm a little surprised you said you'd rather play 4th then 3rd, but that's fine. I'm used to 3.5 and I love it, imperfect as it is.
I just thought that 4th does feel very sterilized and pick up and play rather then actually role playing: most of it is based on a simple build for a character that's good at combat and maybe some skills. It just doesn't feel as there's as much life, and I felt dissapointed by that. I really wanted to love 4th, but I can't even get myself to make a character.
LeoMidori 2 years ago 17
Breakdown and make a character, try it and see what its about, how it really plays, dont let critics kill a game that you may actually like. Dont judge a book by its cover, literally.
gratheist 2 years ago
I tried man, I really, -really- tried to do it. Forced almost. I even started optimistic about it and it just... went downhill from there. I can't do it, I just feel cheated about it all for some reason...
LeoMidori 2 years ago
I agree the random is awesome. I have ran DnD for years. This is an easy game but I also have a tie on items. Buff wands and swords but hard to get to. But putting the magic items in the book is because I hated hand them the buff if they take the feats to make items.
Buckpwns 2 years ago
Respectfully, I love that the magic items went into the players handbook rather then the DMG. But my group usually stayed in "the sweet spot" of 6th-10th campaigns.
sinisterhunter 2 years ago 2
A most excellent review! Thank you very much for posting this.
bradwatson7324 2 years ago
Just passing by. I have played D&D for over 30 years, since before 1st ed. Balance is a myth, only for selfish people who say they want it but actually cannot stand another person rewarded for good roleplaying. When statisical "balance" comes before or totally ousts intelligence, imagination, creativity, and wonder...why call it a roleplaying game. Thank you, I liked and agreed with almost all of the review.
justifan 2 years ago
Remember the Tom Moldvay Basic game? Maybe I'm weird but I think I like it best.
bradwatson7324 2 years ago
Clue me in, are we talking about the basic purple box, the blue box (which I had) from 1978 or the vintage small white box (which I saw once but they wanted $150 for)?
justifan 2 years ago
The purple box with a green dragon, Erol Otis artwork, on the front, 1981 version.
bradwatson7324 2 years ago
Thank you, I believe the blue box was a year or two before the purple. (Erol Otis did great Cthulhu artwork in the original Deities & Demigods!)
justifan 2 years ago
4th Edition is basically a tabletop version of Gauntlet. It's dumbed-down hack-and-slash that lacks the depth of its predecessors.
I'm surprised the rules don't encourage the DM to bellow "YOUR CHARACTER NEEDS FOOD BADLY!" in a deep voice, whenever your character is low on hit points.
Combat should certainly be a big part of D&D...but it should never be the ONLY part. I think I'll stick with 3.5 and earlier editions.
TrianiiRanger 2 years ago 3
agreed. although there are things i do like about 4th edition. at will spells. i love at will spells. a 15th level wizard can cast magic missile using his dick as the somatic component,i think earlier editions of dnd should have at will spells.
bronsonbaker 2 years ago
4th ed blows. Its totally the death of the creative spell casters. My group burned the copy we got.
FORTYSHEEP 2 years ago
4th edition = Microsoft Bob running on Vista..
nuff said.
I miss Gary Gygax, Rest in peace, ol' Kentucky Colonel.
drogoscg1 2 years ago
4th edition = Oblivion/MechWarrior 5.... It has been dumbed down for the consoletards who panic if theres more then 6 buttons to press.. let alone 6 skills...
WhiteTiger225 2 years ago
Great review, you put alot of thought into it.
I have only played 3.5 and I switched to 4 and I like it.
I think your final statement is true, with house rules and modifications you can make it really awesome.
killapede 2 years ago
Your review makes me want to go back to AD&D
In fact, I think I'm going to see if I can get my hands on the original books. BRB
Sethietoes12 2 years ago
I get this sad feeling when looking at 4th edition that they just tried to convert MMO archetypes : Tank, singel target DPS, AOE DPS, Ranged DPS, Buffer and Healer and combat to a pen and paper game.
it's devolution to see Pen & Papper help build the MMO to then see the MMO rebuild the Pen and Papper game. Most of the time players balance out the group naturaly but if we where missing some thing, no sweat. but now the characters seem "too" codependent.
I was a 1st and 2nd edtion fan
Subway0001 2 years ago
I thought this was an intelligent, overly negative review, but I only had one real thing to bring up:
Balance is actually an ideal. Your problem is that the game designers built balance by making all characters similar. You're unhappy because it's boring, not because it's balanced. You even bring up where it isn't balanced (mentioning that some choices are sub-optimal, which denotes imbalance).
A good game (IMHO) that shows balance but isn't boring is Mutants & Masterminds 2E.
azirk83 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hey how many times did yall get shoved in lockers when yall were in high school?
randombutton27 2 years ago
how many times did you get dropped on your head as a baby randombutton27?
Epiczor 2 years ago
I agree with pretty much everything you've said and while I'm still interested in seeing where they take it I'm not holding my breath. I'm really waiting on the new Dark Sun book to see if they can push the system to be interesting.
I never played AD&D though I knew about it. I started exactly as 3rd Edition came out and so for me 3/3.5 is wonderful. Another thing the kills me about 4th is the poor quality of books compared to 3rd.
They just feel cheap.
Scuddi 2 years ago
Nice review. My group has been playing 2nd Ed, we've never progressed, so pardon my ignorance... Is it possible, through playtesting with your group, to be able to "change the rules", to allow for more variance? For example, the specialization of wizards. Can the rules be changed to allow for an invoker, and to have the benefits the were allowed in previous editions? Or, is everything so linked that changing one rule create a chain effect of having to change many rules? Thank you.
jdelpire 2 years ago
4th ed = bye bye customization
alcousi 2 years ago
@alcousi 4E has more customization than 3.5. The sole exception is spell lists for Wizards and such. 4E has tons of options, 3.5 still makes you auto-attack most of the time.
The difference between the games is 3.5 tries to use the rules to create a simulation, where 4E uses the rules to construct a heroic fantasy.
Thaumatolgist 1 year ago
@Thaumatolgist i know its been five months now but i never check back for replies on my comments...lol...anyways i went back to check 4th ed recently and you are right,i think i prefer a game with realism than heroic fantasy thats my problem,4th edition isint bad at all, if you have a good adventure and great role players it can be really fun i am sure,but spellcasters are boring to me in 4th and i dont like what they did to skills.But if i get invited to a 4th edition game i'll gladly try
alcousi 1 year ago
I like D&D games but from what you've described the customization of characeters is dumbed down so I don't think it'd be that great for me.
I love customizing, I spend hours of the game just creating my character - I spend 4x as much time choosing skills, races, classes and items than I ever do running around and fighting XD
Gosgosgosu 2 years ago
I don't have any group and suffer from very strong D&D abstinenses, so that just to keep myself alive I make countless Characters on Sheets.. The madness never ends xD
CarutotehDivine 2 years ago
@CarutotehDivine i am getting to that point, while working on my own game i start to miss dnd, but not as to say mine is bad but because dnd was my first, and you always remember your first.
incarnum13 2 years ago
i've never tried d&d but i am curious to exploring new games (i already play warhammer and 40k and im trying out flames of war) so were would be a good place to start?
aksquash 2 years ago
Now this is a good 4E review. Much better then the horrible Game Geeks review. It is a good mix of both the good and bad points of 4E.
sureshot73A 2 years ago
@sureshot73A if your looking for an easy rail of DND hit 4E... but if your looking for something to really have fun with hit 2ndE or AD&D, i myself go for 3.5 i loved it to death but some feel it is to open... but if you ask me thats why i loved it.
incarnum13 2 years ago
thanks for the review. ive been playing D&D on and off for 20 years now ,4ed comes across as world of warcraft but with pen and paper i dont think 4ed is being honest to its forebearers.thanks for the review !
nozzer2002 2 years ago
Excellent review. Thumbs up!
orendo 2 years ago
On the downside battles now are a number crunching exercise which became even worse with the 4th edition rules. In my opinion battles are a part of the storytelling and should be resolved fast so they don't take you out of the story. Now it seems more like the story is meant to give you an excuse to spend 80% of the game doing battle. If it's just that why even begin to bother with one? I have the impression that D&D has been de-evolved into a mere table top wargame. Pretty sad.
peri2502 2 years ago
... For AD&D they brought out tomes the "fighter guilde" which offered you knights without having a need for introducing them as such. Another change that came with the 3rd edition that I liked was the fact that the combat and rule system was somewhat updated. I never really liked the (THAC0) idea which worked, but seemed unnecessarily cumbersome.
peri2502 2 years ago
Being an old school D&D player myself, I have to agree with many things Spoony says. AD&D still seems to be the "true" game rather than it's successors. When the 3rd edition came out, there were many changes I liked, as for example the "feat" system for it allowed to make any class special in the way you would build it up. You could do so to support the way you were intending to role play it. What else is a knight but a fighter with a title, a certain set of skills and who behaves a certain way?
peri2502 2 years ago
see i dont like that if you want to brake down a door so the guy who has 18 str rolls bad so now you can just roll and roll and get it down thats bull if you cant do it you cant do it
if you need a 20 and 5 guys roll thats dumb thats 5 rolls on a 20 the team need to pick the best one for it and help him one roll and thats it
MrBlackanime 2 years ago
Actually, skill challenges can be very lifelike. I have my characters roleplay AFTER performing skill checks so they don't just say, "I will make a diplomacy check to convince the king's guard that what I am doing is important" and after the player rolls d20 I, as DM, say "Ok, well tell me how that happened; roleplay." But hey, I'm a n00b. All I have is a 4e starter set, the Arcane Towers tiles, and some minis. I still need the core rulebooks. Other than that, I agree, they are kinda stale.
metalgear523 2 years ago
If you MUST follow the rules go ahead, but if you use your imagination and don't go by the rules it's fun it can be zany and crazy exciting without having to take an hour figuring out whether or not you can do this or that.
jesusandknitting 2 years ago
One thing I do like about the D&D game is that you dont HAVE to follow all the rules. The rules tell you basically how to play but you and youre playing group can manipulate them to how you think they should be played. Its really up to the DM. I have a neighbor that when they first started playing, they classified an encounter as when you engage with an enemy. So a fighter can use an encounter power for every new enemy he engaged with. Thats just an example. Play how you feel comfortable
Troubleman24 2 years ago
I always wanted to get into hackmaster however the books are generally hard to locate and players interested in playing it are even rarer.
psychowarrior 2 years ago
1. No more random magical item tables. Players choose what they want to get and DM's award them that. Also buying magical items is much more common in 4e.
2. Rituals are spellcasting power for any class. Rogues/fighters/wizards and so on can now raise dead allies in battle. This was done so you no longer have to run a cleric in a group.
3. Everything has a power source. In walks in the fighter with martial power source "magic".
4. Gods are not super powered killable beings. lol?
Froinlaiven 2 years ago
how are there rules to your imagination?
alfonzo830 2 years ago
heh id like if he did a review of hackmaster, a D&D 2.0 inspired game =]
manny022 2 years ago
I sorta disagree with all the issues, such as "samie" and ritual duration times, which are always put in the negative, as DM, they can decide to override, and even go back to similar rules to 3rd edition, such as using knock a lot quicker. set limits on characters and what they can do to get rid of this "samie" feeling. the PH only gives rules, but everyone knows that the DM is the ultimate golden rule maker, not the book.
zelcron1617192 2 years ago 2
I agree!
jesusandknitting 2 years ago
Plate mail means that you lose out on your dexterity bonus.
Magic Items need to be in the PHB because if you are starting out as a higher level character, a player needs to know what the magic items they are starting out do. What they were going for was having players only need the players handbook.
stilanas 2 years ago
Safe? You should go pick Keep of the Shadowfell and run that against 5 level one parrty members. My DM has to omit a good deal of content from that adventure in order for us to have some sort of shot and not dieing every fight.
4ed doesn't provide for a lot of creativity on the player's behalf as well in 4ed there're the staple class/race combonations and if you didn't happen to pick one of them, then you're going to be gimped for a good long time.
Zephemus 2 years ago
know what you mean man,that encounter with irontooth?wayyyy to difficult.i levelled my party up beforehand and the ranger still died.
phycoshane 2 years ago
I have been gaming since 1976 -- started with OD&D. And I simply can't stand 4e. Luckily there are so many other systems out there it simply doesn't matter, but I think games don't need to be so combat-fixated as D&D anymore.
MhicWombat 2 years ago 3
I like the way spoony's reviews are unedited. These ones at least.
GiefGoldPlx 2 years ago
feather fall ritual.
AMordaciousGoat 2 years ago
4TH edition is crap. I've played it, given it several chances and it's like playing a childs game meant for a computer. Much like playing WoW on table top. It took out pretty much the one thing that makes any game fun for the players, skills. Skill based games are always better. WoTC has failed to deliver yet again. 3.5 is the games best version. Some say it replaces role playing with dice rolling but that is not true. At least, not for skille role players. 4th edition is an epic fail.
jharrod123 2 years ago
4th edition is an elegant simplification of what 3.5 was with a hell of alot deeper combat system and where everyone in the party can jump into a battle straight out level 1. you dont wanna teach a new player that their lvl 1 wizard with 4 HP that they cant jump into battle and when they run out of magic missle, they are forced to throw daggers. 4e past level 5 gets much deeper, and characters become more and more different.
tinathefatlard0 2 years ago
Whatever happened to those classic AD&D monster manuals, with the bug bears, gold, platinum, tiamat, copper dragons, devils from all planes of hell like asmodeus, baalzebub, pit fiends, etc.. remember those simple but cool b&w drawings.
tubernery 2 years ago 3
I do not know much about 4th edition rules, nor do I really know much about DnD overall as I've only ever played crpgs using those rules and obviously those don't generally have the full bag.
But, well, from what you're saying, outside the rituals and such, it sounds like the perfect system for a pc rpg, simple but not too much, etc.
GooeySlime 2 years ago
I am 25, and I have been playing D&D for 20 years. I was able to try out 4th edition, and I found some things good and some things bad, but it was overall still a fun experience. My eladrin wizard felt very different than my 3.5 sun elf wizard, and I heard similar comments from other friends playing familiar character concepts. It is still open to modification and adaptation and fun, and fun is the whole point of any game.
DrPluton 2 years ago 2
I understand alot of your points. But i think it was good for them to take such a basic course. Alot of Role Playing is improvised and house ruled.. D&D has always been a game that is open to modification. Look at the forums. Lots of people post homebrew classes/races. They simplified everything to allow new players an easier time getting use to the game. If you are a veteran in the D&D world, you know how everything works. Its not too hard to, lets say, split up the thievery skil.
Dizalddin 2 years ago
I'm surprised you didn't mention how stupid healing surges are
Zhegan 2 years ago
Stupid? I think it's a nice change to the healing system since it doesn't force a cleric to prepare tons of healing spells and making potions and scrolls.
Smushed001 2 years ago
That isn't true though, since most characters can only use one healing surge by them self during combat and that takes a whole turn. It is very helpful to have a cleric, I've seen a group play without a cleric and they did not do well and had to rest much more than they should of.
shagoosty 2 years ago
You missed my point, I didn't say a group should play without a cleric, just doesn't force them to prepare half of their spells with healing spells.
Not to be confused with me defending 4E either, just one thing I like about it.
Smushed001 2 years ago
Because healing surges rocks and make it so your party doesn't have to rest after every 30 second battle.
shagoosty 2 years ago
It isn't really the healing surges' function that bothers me, it's nice and all if you don't have a cleric or potions, but it really takes a chuck out of the cleric's usefulness since their heals use up healing surges anyways. And I know D&D isn't about perfected realism or anything, but healing surges basically means you could be beaten nearly to death and fully recover from just sitting down for a few minutes. That and potions are pretty much worthless now since they also use healing surges.
Zhegan 2 years ago
No, it doesn't take away from the clerics because you usually can't spend healing surges without a cleric. Normally you can only spend one healing surge a combat and that'll take your whole turn. A cleric, warlord, or bard will have abilities that will use your healing surges to heal you. It actually makes it harder because a cleric might not be able to heal you because you might be out of healing surges.