No reason here that can't be equally attributed to Pathfinder. A lot of things in 4th ed don't make any sense, like single-instant training bonuses for skills, the entire concept of "healing surges," and the fact that you no longer need training (the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat) to be an effective two-weapon fighter. Any character can just pick up two weapons and be just as good as any other. Additionally, bonuses gained from feats and abilities in 4.0 are numerous, complicated, and senseless.
4th ed is a pile of sewerage. I could spend a page countering this vids points but I could not be bothered. My group has tried 18 months of 4th ed and we are moving to pathfinder and ritually burning our 4th ed books.
I feel like this video has too many dislikes based on the title alone. I really can't stand 4e (wanted to love it. read about it, tried it, hated it. The changes to FR make me weep), but this guy is very fair in his assessment, and I don't think he'd even heard about Pathfinder when this video was made.
If it had been called "Should you switch to 4th Edition?" and had virtually the same content, the ratings would be a lot better. I'll be looking over the rest of his stuff!
I got to take a look at the 4E PHB and just looking at all of the tweeking to the mechanics, I feel they made them more complex then they needed to be. I also felt that the material was rushed out to soon, hence the reason for all of the supplements that had to come out. My friend tried to get me into 4E and was even a diehard fan, when PF came out, he quickly switched to PF. So in all honesty, I don't plan on getting in 4E and will continue to enjoy PF.
Pathfinder is a 3.5 rehash, and people still praise it. They are happy to buy the same books again, I guess!
D&D 4E at least is trying to be innovative and progressive. I also took a while to play 4E because of the hate it received, now I wish I had played it before. 4E is a much better game. The hatred is mostly hipsters being assholes and people parroting what they've heard without even playing the game.
Number one reason to not buy 4E: Nobody effing plays 4E. 3.5 and Pathfinder run rampant across Ohio at least. Never been invited to or heard of a single person playing 4E.
@BR0M I strongly dislike 4E, but, for some reason it's the best selling version of d&d so far. Wizards won't release the sales figures, but Amazon will. The accessories alone are out selling the entirety of 3.5. It's disappointing, as I like 3.5, and I even play 2nd edition still (I'm that old). 4th had a few significant improvements, but it's hardly worth the sacrifice. I don't understand why 4th is so popular.
Well the numbers there are partially fraudulent as I buy a ton of "4E accessories." I buy 4E dungeon tiles to build dungeons and landscapes in my Pathfinder and 3.5 campaigns. I also have populated those settings with almost 400 of their miniatures. Some of which (the newer ones) would be classified into their 4E sales. 4E does still sell well regardless as well as in spite of its unpopularity among veterans.
BESIDES Pathfinder being more true to it's roots and better in every way. It takes 100$ to get into 4e!!! Only 50$ for Pathfinder (the core is a DM book and player in one) HELL you can use your 3.5 monster manual too!
@AustinGraggmusician The price probably reflects the lack of effort that went into designing Pathfinder, since it's an edit of 3.5. It's your choice if you want to play an old edition, but you shouldn't be spending new money to do so.
And right now the core D&D material, including 2 Heroes book (you only need 1), DM kit and Monster Vault books that come with a truckload of tokens + adventures and maps, is $75 on Amazon.
I got into 4e about 7months ago. Took me a while to try it, because of the bad press. Now, my group & I think it is great. I am sad it took me so long to try it. We found out, by playing, most the reasons on vids not to play are based on false ideas or streight up BS. We have even been playing without minatures- yup it's in the rules to do so. I find it easier than 3.5 none minis. The suggestions are not forces. You rob yourself if you dont play when a gm wants to run you in a game.
I appreciate a commentary that isn't motivated by die-hard fanboyism. However, though I do see the point you're making in respect to new material, I don't entirely agree with your opinion. As a long running RPG enthusiast (20yrs+) I've often found the inspiration for the games we play outside of the rule sets and honestly prefer a solid core rules system to one with a hundred expansions (a problem I've had with all editions of D&D).
@snakeoi1sean Needed more space; As far as "new " material, everything TSR/Wotc/Hasbro cranks out anymore is just a rehashed and repackaged version of some setting they developed in the 70's or 80's. Blackhawk, Forgotten Realms, RavenLoft, Darksun, Spelljammer ... the only truly new material that ever seems to appear is an adaptation of other games (WoW) or ... well that's all that comes to mind really.
I must agree Pathfinder is where it is at. One book to rule them all... well two books cause the beastiary rocks. I spent over $10000 on AD&D books back in the day and $5000 on 3.5 books. The only way i will buy another Wizards product is if they released Planescape using the Pathfinder system.
Anyway, we've sufficiently spammed the comments section to death and I suspect soon all these messages will be negged/flagged into oblivion/deleted, and rightly so. I'll gladly explain further on where I think you've been misinformed in PMs if you'd like, because I don't really think you're giving it a fair shake here. Both editions do things different ways, but the more things change the more they stay the same.
If you play 3.5 strictly by the rules, you can role play.
If you play 4e strictly by the rules, you can NOT role play. The rules get in the way.
Yes, the 'golden rule' the dm is always right, is there, but its been my experience that it usually makes the game Less fun, because there's no consistency.
Also in 4th ed, rogues can't backstab/sneak-attack the same way, you have to 'chose a power to use'. That's retarded.
@therealquade Do you even know what roleplaying is? It's not pages of tables, it's not Profession: Basketweaver, it's not Skill Focus (Use Rope). It's *playing a role*, getting in the head of your character. You don't need ANY mechanics to let you do that, the mechanics merely provide the Game side and structure. I'm tired of hearing this nonsense. It's disingenuous. Dice and numbers don't make a character compelling.
Lying about the mechanics doesn't help you, either.
@fieryinvective If your DM only permits you to take actions expressly written out, then you can NOT properly role play combat. a rogue can not sneak up behind a person and open up their neck with a kukri, because it is not an expressly written power. the expressly written rules do not perming thinks like climbing up the side of a golem and dumping lamp-oil on its head and lighting it, because that doesn't involve combat available powers. Expressly following the rules forces ROLL play, Not ROLE.
@therealquade So if expressly following the rules forces 'roll' play, but is also the only way you can role play combat...? Maybe you should just not play with DMs who are idiots? Shitty DMs aren't a problem unique to any edition. 3e doesn't have expressly written rules for things like that either. 4e just offers a table of suggested damage values for impromptu actions like that and expects the DM to be able of independent thought and not reliant on a set of tables to tell him what to do now.
@fieryinvective 4e encourages shitty DMing, as it removes so many options. and yes 3e DID allow skills in combat. Want to dodge out of the way? there's a skill for that. Want to do a leap attack? there's a skill for that, Failed your leap attack and now your falling on your ass? there's a skill to stop that. 3e also had a nice hefty list of non-combat skills. you know, for role play. Oh, you need to prove your a citizen, FORGERY (one of the least used skills). Use of skills requires imagination.
@therealquade And another thing. How exactly do you use a skill during combat in 4e? Can you make a tumble check to dodge an attack and TUMBLE out of the way? If I recall correctly, acrobatic feats can't be used in combat in 4e. I could be wrong, but most DM's I've met HATE players that do that and will say something like "oh, your tumbling, that means your prone, attack of opportunity, and enjoy missing your next turn as you get up". 4e encourages this mindset. Its about wording of the books.
@fieryinvective Furthermore, the game structure of 4e makes all non-combat feel like something cheaply thrown together to vaguely string together a series of combat missions. you might as well play any other table-top strategy game like warmachine/hoards, and then LARP all the non-combat. 4e is built from the ground up, centered on combat mechanics with specific pre-set actions. THATS what broke it. WotC is turning it into magic-the-gathering the board game.
@therealquade Also, 4e brings skill usage in as a viable encounter replacement! 3e NEVER did this. Skills were ALWAYS extraneous and not often relevant, in part because there were so goddamn many of them that did umpteen useless things. I know you're trying to change history here to support your own point but seriously, these are not unique to any one edition. The players in my 4e games have developed their characters in amazing ways, just like I did myself in my 3e games. Roleplay endures.
@fieryinvective and lastly the bit about forcing it to be ROLL play instead of ROLE play is this. MOST RPGs let you take on any role of character you like, even the less-than-heroic bard, and give you options to do whatever you want. in 4e, the rules expressly limit actions, and plays more like a board game, or CCG, than an RPG. it forces everything to be about what the ROLLS of the dice are, and what the rules say, than freedom of action. THATS what I meant. Freedom of actions are restricted.
@therealquade Forgery can be covered under Thievery (or Arcana for crafty spellcasters). Acrobatics can be used as a free action to stop falling. There's also a skill power that uses your acrobatics to boost your defenses once an encounter. As for the other argument, that's something all editions do. Hell, one of my games literally has an exiled prince Eladrin bard who affects nobility but is actually pretty much the equivalent of a fantasy pick up artist. Mechanics do not define character.
@fieryinvective >Acrobatics used once per encounter to boost defenses.
That's a bit wonky. the number of times it changes defense shouldn't mater, as long as it isn't cumulative. the way that's worded is that if you do it once, and then stop, you couldn't start again, because once per encounter.
and I do agree, Mechanics do not define character, mechanics DO on the other hand define GAMEPLAY, and gameplay can dramatically affect how characters portray themselves.
In the 3.5 we have one of those players who spends hours making a character that can 1 shot basically anything that comes up. Our DM tried running monsters and encounters which "should" challenge groups level 3 or 4 higher...and still the party isn't getting touched.
4th edition, my party is always challenged every single combat, has to find ways to work together, and has a blast.
I honestly like the fact that monsters actually have some bite to them in 4 vs 3.5
One thing that most people seam to have missed is that 4th edition is for NEW PLAYERS! 3.5 might be good for those who know the game. But it's easier for new players to play 4th. I'm learning some of my friends to play D&D and they don't speak English, so I'm happy for 4th edition.
Please don't spam me with messages that tells me how stupid I am. I really don't have time for that. THIS IS MY OPINION!
The main thing I like about 4rth is that the classes are balanced. We had a fighter that was way more kickass then our wizard. And having powers lets you do things in combat besides *smack*. In Pathfinder (which is a good game, which I'm actually running right now), it's just smack and modified smack (you know, with moves that just shift numbers around like power attack). And I don't buy that having more skills that are more specific helps roleplaying. I think it just makes it more tedious.
I'm sorry 4th making DMs job easier??? How does having to go thru a new series of rules easier? We are all familiar with 3rd. Why? I dont get exited wasting my money. You love 4th? Then you'll cum when 5th and 6th and 7th ed come out.
All you trolls who hate 4e just back off,seriously if you don't like it don't play it you don't have to tell people there stupid because they play this game or tell them there game is stupid because they aren't forcing you to play it.I play 3.5 and 4e so why can't we be friends why can't we be friends?
@superGoliath89 I was kidding on my comment i acctually do play 4e and i was prettending to be a stupid troll because i no people who r trolls so can u guys please stop messegeing me about stuff?
@beaviskhan No, but when you call an entire group of people that I belong to idiots, while at the same time displaying a very lacking knowledge of basic English, I'm gonna have something to say.
@octopus9991 there is malticlass and bard druids and barbariens if you look in the phb2 and monk is in phb3 I think.....you say dummed down I say more ppl will want to try it it gets more ppl into the game its good for new players and I like that because its fun to teach new ppl and with it being an easier system its also fast and not so time consuming because most ppl in the real world have jobs and familys ect. so thats helpful thats my 2 cents...
@octopus9991 First of all, there IS multiclassing, there are barbarians, bards, monks and druids. They may not have been available in PHB1, but they have added them, and it's been quite a while already.
Second, there's a huge difference between something being "dummed down" and it being simplified.
Also, if you're going to call something dumb, people might take you more seriously if you used proper spelling and punctuation, instead of something that looks like a 6 year old wrote it.
4th Edition is shit. Homogenized classes. It's WoW on a board. Overemphasis on a board. There was already a WoW d20 book released a few years ago when WoW was in burning crusade. 4th edition is pure shit. It's for QQQQQQQ DMs who don't know how to 'control' sessions and cheese and suck at running games.
@SuperGoliath89 SORRY DUMBFUCK. All DM's I've played with including myself have run and designed work for D&D for over 15-20 years. It's the system, cunt.
@electronicoffee Here's an idea: How about instead of calling me a "dumbfuck cunt," you actually try and defend your opinion, instead of just repeating those tired old 3.x elitist mantras? What about 4e makes you think it's for sub-par DMs, or that it's WoW on a board?
@SuperGoliath89 Exactly. You made my point for me. It's dumbed down, it's lacking in core flavor, classes and races are too normalized and equalized, it's played on a fucking board (and yes, you could with 3.x but who cares? I only use rough mapping for combats because it's more realistic and less 'BATTLECHESS BULLSHIT'. There's already a WoW d20 book, we didn't need 4th edition.
I don't like 4th ed. mainly because character diversity is gone. They give you different powers to give an illusion of that, but every class basically has 2 or 3 good builds, and your character will suck if you deviate from those.
"Yes, 4th edition fixes a lot of problems of balance, boring grinds, makes DMing less time consuming, makes combat more fun and all that - but hey, if you put in hundreds of hours of your own time into reading all the supplements and changing the 3e rules yourself, it's almost as good."
Makes me wonder why anyone ever buys a new car or computer when they could just grab some junk and hardwire it themselves over several months. *lol*
I can tell you why you shouldn't switch to 4th edition, , , because version 4.5 is around the corner - and you will MUST absolutely get it because it will fix all the problems of version 4.0
No just smater than the idiots who play a poor game system that was and is just a grab at money from the low patience video game generation and like others have said they will come out with anohter editon soon enough much sooner then they would have in the past due to hasbro controling them now in fact with estientials you can already see it.
@beaviskhan You missed the 'r' in smarter, Hasbro should be capitalized, it's spelled essentials (not estentials), and there are numerous occasions within this post where you're missing commas and periods. And this is coming from one of the "idiots" who plays 4e. Also, shut up. :/ Essentials is not some kind of precursor to 4.5 or 5e or some such garbage. That was just a knee-jerk reaction that some ignorant people had when they saw the new builds in the Essentials Heroes books.
Pathfinder is where it's at. It improves upon 3.5 without ruining the game mechanics. Buffed races and classes, the Combat Maneuver system, improved skill system, feats every other level,single core rulebook,etc. Hell, even the art is awesome! If you want improvement but don't like 4e, pick up a copy of Pathfinder.
@LastStand2010 i have both 4E and Pathfinder but your comment about Pathfinder being 1core rulebook isn't so true anymore as they now have a DMG, and various splat books.
@LastStand2010 TRUE! I was looking to get into role play and gave both a shot. PATHFINDER WINS. I tired 3.5 4e and even some d10 and d6. Pathfinder is the best all around in every way compared to the others!
Ahh.. all things said.. purists aside, this current evolution will be a great game to play with my daughter and wife when she turns 4-5 and her little friends :D
Switch to 4th ed if you want to upgrade from your Hero's Quest board game. Or if you would like an experience of pencil/paper version of WoW. The concentration of sqaures on a board and strategic moving takes away from story elements and pretty much evacuates imagination in a combat scene. It simply turns into a form of chess moves with less intellectual intuitiveness.
@furrysrock that is important... let the hp per level of the defensive classes be rather cool and then give certain bonuses to the other classes that are useful and then you actually have the classes being DIFFERENT and as a result of hp per level changes the monsters would have damage output changes and guess what? the wizard and cleric are not going to want to get near the monsters as they can quite easily use them as chew-toys.
You don't even look like a gamer. What a joke. Go back to drinking your latte and playing with your mac. Fortunately the twits that you convince to play 4E DnD will stop playing after a couple years because it's no longer "hip."
4th edition DnD is the MOST BORING role playing game ever produced. Just buy the boardgame "Descent" and throw in some roleplaying and you have 4th edition Dnd. God you make me puke.
@vivalexjones can u explain how to play it to me inna message i was going to buy a starter kit but um lol .. i want to get my friends into it or just play buy myself its a kit for 20 bucks but i dont get how to create a character and play a solo campaign plz respond thanks
To answer the question at the end of the video: no, I haven't switched. I tried, god, how I tried... but I can't do it.
I'm not the kind of avoids change either, I've started with Classical D&D (red box) and tried every version up to 3.5... ironically, I've adapted very well to every one and, to this day, 3.5 is still my "standard" favorited (with some homebrew changes, mind you).
4th edition, however, is not even a RPG anymore, but a simplistic wargame.
@killawind1287 that's the best reason I've ever heard to play 4th. Give the others a shot sometime if you want to start running characters with depth.
so...we should switch because of all the new books we'll "get" to buy? although to be honest i did buy the new forgotten realms books. but i run pathfinder now so i don't have much use for them.
There is no excitement with 4th edition. There isn't. Gygax died, and Wizards saw this as an opportunity to try to cash in on World of Warcraft.
Classes are bland, rules are too simple, there is no diversity on the classes as opposed to other members of the same class. It holds your hand too much.
If you want to play a game that's a good baby's first RPG, I guess 4th edition is for you. Anyone else should avoid it like the plague.
Oh look, he said the "magic word." Balanced does not mean "equal," folks. I've seen more balanced games from less equal rules. RIFTS, for example. RIFTS may seem broken, but all classes have their foils and weaknesses, just as they have their strengths, and not a single one is equal to any other class. As for 4th ed. I've looked at the book. the rules are complicated and the game might as well be D&D miniatures 2nd edition.
Man, he gives so many reasons not to bother switching...his main reason is because it's new. Not a bad reason, but once the shiny wears off? Go back to D&D.
You Shouldn't switch. Its basically WOW. And You can Find ALL THE 3.5e BOOKS ONLINE FOR FREE! All the reasons he gave WERE BULL! Being a DM IN 3.5 was SO MUCH SIMPLER! You have over 100+ Free online Tools for making Dungeons encounters. You can take all the reasons He gave and they exsist in PATHFINDER 3.5. 4th ED is WORTHLESS! WORTHLESS!
3.5 what you call flaws I call a real experience. Hell you think 3.5 has flaws? I know a lot of people out there who still play 1st and 2nd edition. 4th is a joke amongst veteran players.
@refuckulate420 thank you. I'm in the "new" generation. Im 18 and have been playing I think 11 years now and I bought the 4th PH and nearly vomited all over it. Its a video game without te video and it takes character customization out the window in my opinion. You are forced to take one path with each class. I play 2nd AD&D because I think even the feats in 3.5 are crap. $th just kills my soul...
Our Dungeon Master bought 4.0 and thought he'd try it for a session or two, just to see how it was. We found some horrible things changes, and simple mistakes that just didn't get noticed. For examples, basic orcs had 1 hp, and barbarians had an ability that lets them do damage even if they miss. Also, healing surges allow characters to heal far too much, and far too often. It got to a point where our DM got annoyed and sent a level 14 against our still level 1 characters. We all survived.
@TheBurningTrain The 1 HP monsters you speak of are called minions. It's your DMs fault if he uses too much cannon-fodder and not enough regular monsters. Also, I find it highly unlikely that your level 1 party survived a fight with a level 14 monster. what monster was this? The Level 14 monster with the lowest AC I could find was a Drider Fanglord with 26 AC and 172 HP. If you have minmaxed your primary attack stat to a 20, that means your level 1 character gets a 25 vs AC on a natural 20.
Yes, people have always argued and complained when new editions of the game have been released. But never, in the history of D&D, has such a great division among fans been created since the release of 4th Edition. It's one thing to change the rules; it's another thing entirely to radically alter the foundations of the game to the point where it's no longer recognizable as D&D.
The only thing I like about 4E is the fealing of power. Players feel (and maybe are) more powerful than in 3.5 where a wizard could cast 3 offensive spell and then was stuck with his staff or bow.
What I don't like is the tactic thing. I'm not a tactician, I'm a storyteller. So now I'm planning a Pathfinder game, kind of "in between". I like it.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a new group to play so i haven't been playing for a year, however when i was playing this edition i was having an awesome time!
I've played 3/35 in the past and found the game a little confusing because of the overly complicated ruleset and constant rule checking. 4ed really did eliminate this happening and now 2 years on there are tons of new books which make the game even better through diversity of character options and monsters etc.
I might switch over to 4E after I castrate myself so that I might better understand the nature of the character I might play. All of them are mere eunuchs compared to their former glory of 2nd Edition. 4E is a board game masquerading as an RPG. Nothing more.
there is no such thing as a "video game on paper" it's called a video game because it's a video! 4th edition is awesome, just like everyone complained about every other edition of d&d when it first came out. they will complain about this one.
1. Unique characters must be WORKED for. Work with the DM to get house rules going. If you want to play hack n slash, you can...but you can really tweak the powers to work in funny, awesome ways.
2. Healing Surges make early-partying easier when you lack a cleric. Its noob friendly, so its good to break in the interested.
3. Negatives to character are erased for the sake of arrays working; faster characters from the ground up.
AS FOR YOOOOOOOU MR MOVIE MAKER: Is switching really necessary? 3.5 and 4e are both fun (though more fun constructive-wise is 3.5, the combat can get messy which 4e tells you to lock down). I say you could MIX the two systems (Toss in the skills from 3.5 and use the combat from 4e) if you really tried.
But hey, I give credit to 4e; It'll be funny to be an epic level half-elf rogue who can raise the dead and cast arcane magic. (Dilletante and about 4 feats for a palasorcarogue! FEAR ME!)
4th edition feels like a glossy, glorified step backwards. It seems intent on inhibiting the creativity that is the trademark of D&D and decreasing flexibility . It also kind of forces you to throw out any of your older source material rather than just re-tooling it a bit for the new system. I say pathfinder is the way to go. It's basically 3.5 with some balance adjustments and fresh material. Not to mention the incredible detail and scope of the campaign settings put forth by Paizo publishing.
I just got back into table top RPGs after 16 years away from the scene. I came across an entire library of 3.0/3.5 books for a very reasonable price and decided to buy them. Now, I have some friends encouraging me to create a campaign and DM for them. I'm planning on adopting a 2e Planescape setting into a 3.5 campaign. After this video, Yax, I might take a look at 4e and see if there is anything I actual want to implement into house rules.
I have and haven't switch, and what I mean by that is I am in a 3.5 gaming group with my close friends and I play in the RPGA game with my 4th ed character
i gotta say that i have not liked 4.0 so far. it seems to me that wotc basically produced this edition to relate to a more PC rpg oriented youth as much as a tool for increasing profit. ilove d&d, but i like wotc less cause they are monopolizing the game industry. ill bluntly put it as 4E is for people who werent trained to exercise their imagination or for those who are ok with having their entire game planned out for them. go back to 3.5. if you havent played 3.5, please do. its way better.
i started my D&D playing with 4th edition, and switched to 3/3.5 because of one major flaw with 4E. Too much health, the battles take way to damn long which takes away from the fun of adventuring. 4E is only good if you want a . . . . I can't really think of anything to say about 4E that is a good thing. The dragonborn race is crap compared to the 3/3.5 half-dragon, the battles are too tedious and the overall enjoyment of 4E is far lesser than 3/3.5
People are playing 4th Edition because it's bright, shiny, and new. Once that novelty wears off, they'll realize what a shallow game it is.
It's a world where even people who know no magic can take a five-minute-break after combat, spend a couple "healing surges", and basically go from being mortally wounded to perfectly healthy after resting for a few minutes.
It's a video game on paper, plain and simple, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
I could not have said it better myself. You are a genius to put it in such simple and true language. I am surprised that the so-called smart guys who work at w.o.t.c would put out this junk!
I've played both 4th and 3rd edition and the switch for me was nothing to do with the "new shiny" aspect.
I switched because the edition for me was a much more enjoyable experience compared to the constant rule checking sessions that a number of my old groups went through with 3rd. 4ed is steamlined and now after a two years has a nice diverse selection of reading material to utilize allowing a huge amount of customization both for players and DMs.
@TrianiiRanger That's the fucking point? You don't wake up in the morning and tell yourself "I'm going to do PCP today! :D". No, you and your friends start with Marijuana as an entry drug. Then you move on up. The same thing for this, NO ONE (and trust me, I tried) is going to look at 3.5e and say "Let's do it." No, you're not going to see guys say "This is too much work" you give 4th ed, they'll love it. It's more THEATRICAL.
@TrianiiRanger If dnd contributed so much to video games over the years, why is it wrong for video games to contribute to dnd? Also, if healing surges are your biggest complaint there's the remedy of house rules.
@elpfray There's also the stuff like a wizard having daily, per encounter and at will powers, no utility spells what so ever. And a fighter has daily, per encounter and at will powers... that makes him just like a wizard. And if you decide not to build your character like the book recommends, you can still play, but you suck at your chosen profession. 2nd and 3rd edition had unique characters with depth and personality. Now, they're all cookie-cutter immages of some perceived stereotype.
@sandorsbox Yeah, all the classes have the same format, but that doesn't make them all the same. The way they are used in combat are very different and the way they are use in role-playing should be very different. I find it refreshing as a DM and player that everybody feels useful through an entire encounter rather than the wizard casting his few spells and then sitting in a corner or the fighter going into every battle knowing that they're just going to be using a basic attack.
@elpfray But look at classic fantasy stories. What do fighters do... "basic attacks" the only difference is how they are described. Aragorn just did "basic attacks" but the way his battles were described, he was doing differen things with each one. You don't need some special uber attack to make a warrior different, you need a player who can say "I'm going to slash at the first orc. Next Round: I'll run my blade between the next one's ribs." This dumbing down is unecessary.
@sandorsbox EX: Sure Strike - "you trade power for precision." Now, is that a "special uber attack"? I don't think so - it makes tactical sense and something that a swordfighter would actucally do. I've studied Iaido for 3 years and (by no means am I an expert) I've learned alot of little tricks that are different enough to qualify as something other than basic. As far as description. 4e doesn't take that away - that's still up to the players i.e. "I'll run my blade between the next one's ribs"
@elpfray If you've studied Iaido (as I've studied basic Kenjutsu) then you know that the "once per encounter" crap or "once per day" crap is unreasonable. No fighter is going to do something that tires him out so completely that he cannot do the same move again for 24 hours, nor will a figher's feint be so similar the next time that he can't try another feint during a fight with the same person. this micromanaging of a warriors abilities turns the game into WoW with pen and paper.
@sandorsbox I wouldn't consider it over-exertion, rather the opportunity may not arise again. Aside from the realty of the abilities, you're only refering to WoW in terms of combat, well yeah, it's fun to do more things. The role playing is the same. I'm not saying 4e is the best or anything as I also play a 3.5 and an adnd adventure. They all have their merits and their issues. The big difference - WoW is WoW, already programmed and unflexible (still fun, though), and 4e is 4e, DnD at its heart
@elpfray I have to disagree. 4e is not D&D at its heart, because D&D isn't supposed to be balanced to death. D&D isn't supposed to resemble WoW in any way shape or form, stuff like WoW is supposed to remind people of D&D. Characters are supposed to have different abilities but not be defined as "Striker" or "DPS" or "Healer." I realize that those are roles to fill, but a role playing game should have more flexibility than cornholing every class into a perfectly made slot.
@sandorsbox The classes were always defined wether they were labeled or not. The cleric has ALWAYS been the healer, the wizard has ALWAYS been the striker. They can be built different ways to do different things within reason. I play a cleric/warlock - maybe not the optimal combo, but he makes for a fun character. And why shouldn't WoW remind people of DnD or vice-versa? All rpgs came from DnD so why shouldn't they resemble their creator?
@elpfray But in 4th ed, if you don't follow a specific build you're not going to be as good as a character of the same class who follows the build the books prescribe. My point remains, it's turned into a dumbed down video game version of D&D. The character element is gone and all characters are pretty much the same. It's as bland as gruel. Let's not get me started on the races though, with all the dragon-born, elemental this and that and infernal/divine half-breeds.
@sandorsbox It's not about your character being "good", it's about being interesting, fun, and doing what you want. I'm pretty sure 4e does that... maybe I'm just playing it wrong.
@elpfray No, actually, you're playing it right, I will say, if you have fun with it, go for it. I can't stomach the thought of all the characters falling into exactly the same format and being built to such exact specifications to be any good. From one gamer to another though, enjoy it if you like it. I'll stick with my traditional, Tolkienesque D&D styles.
@sandorsbox Thanks. And I completely agree with you about the character classes; they all seem exactly the same. And the 'per encounter/per day' powers set-up is just absurd. I can just imagine the party's wizard saying "Gee...sorry guys, I know that spell I cast in the last battle was really cool, but I can't use it right now. However, if we happen to encounter another monster, I'll just miraculously have the power to cast it again." It throws any sense of realism right out the window.
@TrianiiRanger I've always liked the concept of the magical incantations running around in a wizard's head and when he speaks them, they vanish just like he had read a scroll, so he has to rememorize them. I'm even ok with a sorceror just having spontaneous magical ability. But in that I am slightly familiar with actual swordplay, I can't imagine a single thing a fighter can do that will tire him out so much that he can't do it again for 24 hours. That's just rediculous.
@TrianiiRanger Good thing it doesn't take all kinds. Otherwise your opinion wouldn't actually be the law every sentient being in existence operated off of.
I have liked 3.5 and 4.0 though I have to say that I prefer 3.5 myself I have had a much easier time teaching 4.0 to new comers. It is very balanced with concrete rules while 3.5 has more things open to interpretation and options for your classes. They are both fun though. The difference of preference is (from what I can see) how technical you want to be about the game.For casual RP 4.0 is definitely superior but 3.5 has more things to offer for those who like to spend a lot of time customizing
also, after rewatching this vid - does anyone else notice it basically runs through a whole list of points saying "4E does this well, but previous versions did it at least as well, if not better" and then finishes with "the one reason to buy 4E is that it is NEW!!!!!!!!11111(evleventyone)" so, its a game that does not - in the reveiwers opinion - add anything too significant to the game but the book is shiney and so therefore it is better?
my friend hates 4th edition because you can't play as many monster races as you can with the 3.5 edition with the savage species. Other than that he loves the 4th edition as a whole.
They should release a new Advanced Dungeons and Dragons for players who want to be up-to-date in the D&D community but don't want to deal with the awful 4E rules. Otherwise I'm not switching, 3.5 until they release something better.
4th edition rocks! I've been playing D&D for 29 years this year - and 4th edition has a very similar feel to the games that we used to play back in 1st edition. All you whiney nerdy little bitches that cry out "4th edition sucks!" - don't fucking play it. There are other games that might suit you, but to sit around and bitch just doesn't do anything good.
dude ... seriously??? I cannot find one thing I like about 4E after buying it morning of release I read through the PHB and was frankly shocked. I already get my stultifying grind quests at work, stick with 3.5 or D20 Modern.
"Grind quests"? Are you illiterate? There's nothing like that anywhere in 4E, or in any edition of D&D ever made. You're making up idiotic lies out of a misguided sense of loyalty to a game. That's kind of pathetic.
No reason here that can't be equally attributed to Pathfinder. A lot of things in 4th ed don't make any sense, like single-instant training bonuses for skills, the entire concept of "healing surges," and the fact that you no longer need training (the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat) to be an effective two-weapon fighter. Any character can just pick up two weapons and be just as good as any other. Additionally, bonuses gained from feats and abilities in 4.0 are numerous, complicated, and senseless.
DyneTreal 1 week ago
@DyneTreal Oh, unless you're a ranger. Then you can be good at two-weapon fighting. But don't expect a good two-weapon fighter or rogue.
DyneTreal 1 week ago
4th edition? You mean Super Hero Miniature Combat Edition correct?
HeathbrookBadhwar 3 weeks ago
4th ed is a pile of sewerage. I could spend a page countering this vids points but I could not be bothered. My group has tried 18 months of 4th ed and we are moving to pathfinder and ritually burning our 4th ed books.
soneth1 1 month ago 3
My group still plays 3.5. If we would switch to anything, it would be Pathfinder. If you play 4.0, you might as well play WoW.
TheRosswise 1 month ago
4th edition is gay
stoner4010 1 month ago
So you can be a mindless drone?
cotton1983 1 month ago
I feel like this video has too many dislikes based on the title alone. I really can't stand 4e (wanted to love it. read about it, tried it, hated it. The changes to FR make me weep), but this guy is very fair in his assessment, and I don't think he'd even heard about Pathfinder when this video was made.
If it had been called "Should you switch to 4th Edition?" and had virtually the same content, the ratings would be a lot better. I'll be looking over the rest of his stuff!
RabiesBunny 1 month ago
God its obvious the guy dont even like the damn 4th edition. 3.5 all the way
TalRasan 1 month ago
I got to take a look at the 4E PHB and just looking at all of the tweeking to the mechanics, I feel they made them more complex then they needed to be. I also felt that the material was rushed out to soon, hence the reason for all of the supplements that had to come out. My friend tried to get me into 4E and was even a diehard fan, when PF came out, he quickly switched to PF. So in all honesty, I don't plan on getting in 4E and will continue to enjoy PF.
Twinklesrawr 1 month ago
Pathfinder is a 3.5 rehash, and people still praise it. They are happy to buy the same books again, I guess!
D&D 4E at least is trying to be innovative and progressive. I also took a while to play 4E because of the hate it received, now I wish I had played it before. 4E is a much better game. The hatred is mostly hipsters being assholes and people parroting what they've heard without even playing the game.
landovers 2 months ago
Number one reason to not buy 4E: Nobody effing plays 4E. 3.5 and Pathfinder run rampant across Ohio at least. Never been invited to or heard of a single person playing 4E.
BR0M 2 months ago
@BR0M I strongly dislike 4E, but, for some reason it's the best selling version of d&d so far. Wizards won't release the sales figures, but Amazon will. The accessories alone are out selling the entirety of 3.5. It's disappointing, as I like 3.5, and I even play 2nd edition still (I'm that old). 4th had a few significant improvements, but it's hardly worth the sacrifice. I don't understand why 4th is so popular.
nowyouareazombie 2 months ago
@nowyouareazombie
Well the numbers there are partially fraudulent as I buy a ton of "4E accessories." I buy 4E dungeon tiles to build dungeons and landscapes in my Pathfinder and 3.5 campaigns. I also have populated those settings with almost 400 of their miniatures. Some of which (the newer ones) would be classified into their 4E sales. 4E does still sell well regardless as well as in spite of its unpopularity among veterans.
BR0M 1 month ago
BESIDES Pathfinder being more true to it's roots and better in every way. It takes 100$ to get into 4e!!! Only 50$ for Pathfinder (the core is a DM book and player in one) HELL you can use your 3.5 monster manual too!
AustinGraggmusician 2 months ago
@AustinGraggmusician The price probably reflects the lack of effort that went into designing Pathfinder, since it's an edit of 3.5. It's your choice if you want to play an old edition, but you shouldn't be spending new money to do so.
And right now the core D&D material, including 2 Heroes book (you only need 1), DM kit and Monster Vault books that come with a truckload of tokens + adventures and maps, is $75 on Amazon.
landovers 2 months ago
I got into 4e about 7months ago. Took me a while to try it, because of the bad press. Now, my group & I think it is great. I am sad it took me so long to try it. We found out, by playing, most the reasons on vids not to play are based on false ideas or streight up BS. We have even been playing without minatures- yup it's in the rules to do so. I find it easier than 3.5 none minis. The suggestions are not forces. You rob yourself if you dont play when a gm wants to run you in a game.
inlife9 3 months ago
I appreciate a commentary that isn't motivated by die-hard fanboyism. However, though I do see the point you're making in respect to new material, I don't entirely agree with your opinion. As a long running RPG enthusiast (20yrs+) I've often found the inspiration for the games we play outside of the rule sets and honestly prefer a solid core rules system to one with a hundred expansions (a problem I've had with all editions of D&D).
snakeoi1sean 3 months ago
@snakeoi1sean Needed more space; As far as "new " material, everything TSR/Wotc/Hasbro cranks out anymore is just a rehashed and repackaged version of some setting they developed in the 70's or 80's. Blackhawk, Forgotten Realms, RavenLoft, Darksun, Spelljammer ... the only truly new material that ever seems to appear is an adaptation of other games (WoW) or ... well that's all that comes to mind really.
snakeoi1sean 3 months ago
I must agree Pathfinder is where it is at. One book to rule them all... well two books cause the beastiary rocks. I spent over $10000 on AD&D books back in the day and $5000 on 3.5 books. The only way i will buy another Wizards product is if they released Planescape using the Pathfinder system.
HoRuSArcheTyPe 3 months ago
Anyway, we've sufficiently spammed the comments section to death and I suspect soon all these messages will be negged/flagged into oblivion/deleted, and rightly so. I'll gladly explain further on where I think you've been misinformed in PMs if you'd like, because I don't really think you're giving it a fair shake here. Both editions do things different ways, but the more things change the more they stay the same.
fieryinvective 3 months ago
The reason I'll never play 4th edition again.
If you play 3.5 strictly by the rules, you can role play.
If you play 4e strictly by the rules, you can NOT role play. The rules get in the way.
Yes, the 'golden rule' the dm is always right, is there, but its been my experience that it usually makes the game Less fun, because there's no consistency.
Also in 4th ed, rogues can't backstab/sneak-attack the same way, you have to 'chose a power to use'. That's retarded.
therealquade 3 months ago
@therealquade Do you even know what roleplaying is? It's not pages of tables, it's not Profession: Basketweaver, it's not Skill Focus (Use Rope). It's *playing a role*, getting in the head of your character. You don't need ANY mechanics to let you do that, the mechanics merely provide the Game side and structure. I'm tired of hearing this nonsense. It's disingenuous. Dice and numbers don't make a character compelling.
Lying about the mechanics doesn't help you, either.
fieryinvective 3 months ago
@fieryinvective If your DM only permits you to take actions expressly written out, then you can NOT properly role play combat. a rogue can not sneak up behind a person and open up their neck with a kukri, because it is not an expressly written power. the expressly written rules do not perming thinks like climbing up the side of a golem and dumping lamp-oil on its head and lighting it, because that doesn't involve combat available powers. Expressly following the rules forces ROLL play, Not ROLE.
therealquade 3 months ago
@therealquade So if expressly following the rules forces 'roll' play, but is also the only way you can role play combat...? Maybe you should just not play with DMs who are idiots? Shitty DMs aren't a problem unique to any edition. 3e doesn't have expressly written rules for things like that either. 4e just offers a table of suggested damage values for impromptu actions like that and expects the DM to be able of independent thought and not reliant on a set of tables to tell him what to do now.
fieryinvective 3 months ago
@fieryinvective 4e encourages shitty DMing, as it removes so many options. and yes 3e DID allow skills in combat. Want to dodge out of the way? there's a skill for that. Want to do a leap attack? there's a skill for that, Failed your leap attack and now your falling on your ass? there's a skill to stop that. 3e also had a nice hefty list of non-combat skills. you know, for role play. Oh, you need to prove your a citizen, FORGERY (one of the least used skills). Use of skills requires imagination.
therealquade 3 months ago
@therealquade And another thing. How exactly do you use a skill during combat in 4e? Can you make a tumble check to dodge an attack and TUMBLE out of the way? If I recall correctly, acrobatic feats can't be used in combat in 4e. I could be wrong, but most DM's I've met HATE players that do that and will say something like "oh, your tumbling, that means your prone, attack of opportunity, and enjoy missing your next turn as you get up". 4e encourages this mindset. Its about wording of the books.
therealquade 3 months ago
@fieryinvective Furthermore, the game structure of 4e makes all non-combat feel like something cheaply thrown together to vaguely string together a series of combat missions. you might as well play any other table-top strategy game like warmachine/hoards, and then LARP all the non-combat. 4e is built from the ground up, centered on combat mechanics with specific pre-set actions. THATS what broke it. WotC is turning it into magic-the-gathering the board game.
therealquade 3 months ago
@therealquade Also, 4e brings skill usage in as a viable encounter replacement! 3e NEVER did this. Skills were ALWAYS extraneous and not often relevant, in part because there were so goddamn many of them that did umpteen useless things. I know you're trying to change history here to support your own point but seriously, these are not unique to any one edition. The players in my 4e games have developed their characters in amazing ways, just like I did myself in my 3e games. Roleplay endures.
fieryinvective 3 months ago
@fieryinvective and lastly the bit about forcing it to be ROLL play instead of ROLE play is this. MOST RPGs let you take on any role of character you like, even the less-than-heroic bard, and give you options to do whatever you want. in 4e, the rules expressly limit actions, and plays more like a board game, or CCG, than an RPG. it forces everything to be about what the ROLLS of the dice are, and what the rules say, than freedom of action. THATS what I meant. Freedom of actions are restricted.
therealquade 3 months ago
@therealquade Forgery can be covered under Thievery (or Arcana for crafty spellcasters). Acrobatics can be used as a free action to stop falling. There's also a skill power that uses your acrobatics to boost your defenses once an encounter. As for the other argument, that's something all editions do. Hell, one of my games literally has an exiled prince Eladrin bard who affects nobility but is actually pretty much the equivalent of a fantasy pick up artist. Mechanics do not define character.
fieryinvective 3 months ago
@fieryinvective >Acrobatics used once per encounter to boost defenses.
That's a bit wonky. the number of times it changes defense shouldn't mater, as long as it isn't cumulative. the way that's worded is that if you do it once, and then stop, you couldn't start again, because once per encounter.
and I do agree, Mechanics do not define character, mechanics DO on the other hand define GAMEPLAY, and gameplay can dramatically affect how characters portray themselves.
therealquade 3 months ago
So I play in a 3.5 and DM a 4th.
In the 3.5 we have one of those players who spends hours making a character that can 1 shot basically anything that comes up. Our DM tried running monsters and encounters which "should" challenge groups level 3 or 4 higher...and still the party isn't getting touched.
4th edition, my party is always challenged every single combat, has to find ways to work together, and has a blast.
I honestly like the fact that monsters actually have some bite to them in 4 vs 3.5
UltimateMischief 4 months ago
4th edition is a lot of fun. But it screams: BALANCE!!!
evannoel121989 4 months ago
4th Edition???? Man...I am so damned old. (Fav mythos are the Cthulhu mythos from my first edition Deities and Demigods)
kadishevdox 5 months ago
One thing that most people seam to have missed is that 4th edition is for NEW PLAYERS! 3.5 might be good for those who know the game. But it's easier for new players to play 4th. I'm learning some of my friends to play D&D and they don't speak English, so I'm happy for 4th edition.
Please don't spam me with messages that tells me how stupid I am. I really don't have time for that. THIS IS MY OPINION!
wwwd11 5 months ago
The main thing I like about 4rth is that the classes are balanced. We had a fighter that was way more kickass then our wizard. And having powers lets you do things in combat besides *smack*. In Pathfinder (which is a good game, which I'm actually running right now), it's just smack and modified smack (you know, with moves that just shift numbers around like power attack). And I don't buy that having more skills that are more specific helps roleplaying. I think it just makes it more tedious.
CylonDorado 5 months ago
Also, i like how at the end there he implies half the community didn't go "fuck that ill play pathfinder/castles and crusades" ect
SYNYSTERfknGATES 5 months ago
4e should have been called DnD WoW edition
SYNYSTERfknGATES 5 months ago
@OreoNinja100 you heard wrong bb~
fieryinvective 5 months ago
I'm sorry 4th making DMs job easier??? How does having to go thru a new series of rules easier? We are all familiar with 3rd. Why? I dont get exited wasting my money. You love 4th? Then you'll cum when 5th and 6th and 7th ed come out.
TheBigDanois 6 months ago
Am I the only person who thinks the flame war in the comments is funny? :P
octopus9991 6 months ago
All you trolls who hate 4e just back off,seriously if you don't like it don't play it you don't have to tell people there stupid because they play this game or tell them there game is stupid because they aren't forcing you to play it.I play 3.5 and 4e so why can't we be friends why can't we be friends?
octopus9991 6 months ago
@superGoliath89 I was kidding on my comment i acctually do play 4e and i was prettending to be a stupid troll because i no people who r trolls so can u guys please stop messegeing me about stuff?
octopus9991 6 months ago
Your a real jerk and a grammar nazi aren't you putz
beaviskhan 6 months ago
@beaviskhan No, but when you call an entire group of people that I belong to idiots, while at the same time displaying a very lacking knowledge of basic English, I'm gonna have something to say.
SuperGoliath89 6 months ago
why u should switch: NO multiclassing NO barbariens bards monks and druids
and so dummed down it makes u lose 5 iq points:)
octopus9991 7 months ago
@octopus9991 there is malticlass and bard druids and barbariens if you look in the phb2 and monk is in phb3 I think.....you say dummed down I say more ppl will want to try it it gets more ppl into the game its good for new players and I like that because its fun to teach new ppl and with it being an easier system its also fast and not so time consuming because most ppl in the real world have jobs and familys ect. so thats helpful thats my 2 cents...
HobbitOfBlood 7 months ago
@octopus9991 First of all, there IS multiclassing, there are barbarians, bards, monks and druids. They may not have been available in PHB1, but they have added them, and it's been quite a while already.
Second, there's a huge difference between something being "dummed down" and it being simplified.
Also, if you're going to call something dumb, people might take you more seriously if you used proper spelling and punctuation, instead of something that looks like a 6 year old wrote it.
SuperGoliath89 6 months ago
I switched just to piss off haters who do not understand the role abstraction plays in 4e or their edition of choice.
3.x is not my cup of tea, 4e or 2e plz.
ShinobuHarvester 7 months ago
4th Edition is shit. Homogenized classes. It's WoW on a board. Overemphasis on a board. There was already a WoW d20 book released a few years ago when WoW was in burning crusade. 4th edition is pure shit. It's for QQQQQQQ DMs who don't know how to 'control' sessions and cheese and suck at running games.
electronicoffee 9 months ago
@electronicoffee Sounds like you've been playing with some pretty shitty DMs. That's not the edition's fault.
SuperGoliath89 6 months ago
@SuperGoliath89 SORRY DUMBFUCK. All DM's I've played with including myself have run and designed work for D&D for over 15-20 years. It's the system, cunt.
electronicoffee 6 months ago
@electronicoffee Here's an idea: How about instead of calling me a "dumbfuck cunt," you actually try and defend your opinion, instead of just repeating those tired old 3.x elitist mantras? What about 4e makes you think it's for sub-par DMs, or that it's WoW on a board?
SuperGoliath89 6 months ago
@SuperGoliath89 Exactly. You made my point for me. It's dumbed down, it's lacking in core flavor, classes and races are too normalized and equalized, it's played on a fucking board (and yes, you could with 3.x but who cares? I only use rough mapping for combats because it's more realistic and less 'BATTLECHESS BULLSHIT'. There's already a WoW d20 book, we didn't need 4th edition.
electronicoffee 6 months ago 2
@electronicoffee Classes are meaningless in 4th Edition. Everyone has 20 instant abilities? lol stupid.
electronicoffee 6 months ago 3
I don't like 4th ed. mainly because character diversity is gone. They give you different powers to give an illusion of that, but every class basically has 2 or 3 good builds, and your character will suck if you deviate from those.
SwordMasterz2 10 months ago
This review basically can be summed up like this.
"Yes, 4th edition fixes a lot of problems of balance, boring grinds, makes DMing less time consuming, makes combat more fun and all that - but hey, if you put in hundreds of hours of your own time into reading all the supplements and changing the 3e rules yourself, it's almost as good."
Makes me wonder why anyone ever buys a new car or computer when they could just grab some junk and hardwire it themselves over several months. *lol*
Stairc 10 months ago
is someone hoovering or did his computer just start working harder
ChillyMan5 10 months ago
I can tell you why you shouldn't switch to 4th edition, , , because version 4.5 is around the corner - and you will MUST absolutely get it because it will fix all the problems of version 4.0
Pinttire 11 months ago
I wouldnt switch if you pointed a gun at me
beaviskhan 11 months ago
@beaviskhan
that would make you some what stubborn don't you think?
ChillyMan5 10 months ago
@ChillyMan5
No just smater than the idiots who play a poor game system that was and is just a grab at money from the low patience video game generation and like others have said they will come out with anohter editon soon enough much sooner then they would have in the past due to hasbro controling them now in fact with estientials you can already see it.
beaviskhan 10 months ago
@beaviskhan
i understand the want for the more complex system by the current user but in fairness wizards are a company som they need to turn a profit
ChillyMan5 10 months ago
@beaviskhan You missed the 'r' in smarter, Hasbro should be capitalized, it's spelled essentials (not estentials), and there are numerous occasions within this post where you're missing commas and periods. And this is coming from one of the "idiots" who plays 4e. Also, shut up. :/ Essentials is not some kind of precursor to 4.5 or 5e or some such garbage. That was just a knee-jerk reaction that some ignorant people had when they saw the new builds in the Essentials Heroes books.
SuperGoliath89 6 months ago
Pathfinder is where it's at. It improves upon 3.5 without ruining the game mechanics. Buffed races and classes, the Combat Maneuver system, improved skill system, feats every other level,single core rulebook,etc. Hell, even the art is awesome! If you want improvement but don't like 4e, pick up a copy of Pathfinder.
LastStand2010 11 months ago 31
@LastStand2010 sounds complicated. What happened to simple rpg's?
Antiks72 8 months ago
@Antiks72 It's actually much simpler than 3.5, but I do agree that RPGs have gotten way too complicated these days.
LastStand2010 8 months ago
@LastStand2010 i have both 4E and Pathfinder but your comment about Pathfinder being 1core rulebook isn't so true anymore as they now have a DMG, and various splat books.
robocoastie 6 months ago
@LastStand2010 TRUE! I was looking to get into role play and gave both a shot. PATHFINDER WINS. I tired 3.5 4e and even some d10 and d6. Pathfinder is the best all around in every way compared to the others!
AustinGraggmusician 2 months ago
it's a game where you are suppose to have fun so if some rule is getting in the way of fun just change it :P
feitur 1 year ago
Ahh.. all things said.. purists aside, this current evolution will be a great game to play with my daughter and wife when she turns 4-5 and her little friends :D
aplshipper 1 year ago
Because I am a fanboi and i refuse to play second.
/cry
Bring the goods back.
nazaxprime 1 year ago
Switch to 4th ed if you want to upgrade from your Hero's Quest board game. Or if you would like an experience of pencil/paper version of WoW. The concentration of sqaures on a board and strategic moving takes away from story elements and pretty much evacuates imagination in a combat scene. It simply turns into a form of chess moves with less intellectual intuitiveness.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
It's a game, if you don't like the rules just change them....
furrysrock 1 year ago 23
@furrysrock or play 3.5 edition or pathfinder.
DungeonsItalia 1 year ago
@furrysrock that is important... let the hp per level of the defensive classes be rather cool and then give certain bonuses to the other classes that are useful and then you actually have the classes being DIFFERENT and as a result of hp per level changes the monsters would have damage output changes and guess what? the wizard and cleric are not going to want to get near the monsters as they can quite easily use them as chew-toys.
doombybbr 5 months ago
You don't even look like a gamer. What a joke. Go back to drinking your latte and playing with your mac. Fortunately the twits that you convince to play 4E DnD will stop playing after a couple years because it's no longer "hip."
4th edition DnD is the MOST BORING role playing game ever produced. Just buy the boardgame "Descent" and throw in some roleplaying and you have 4th edition Dnd. God you make me puke.
vivalexjones 1 year ago
@vivalexjones can u explain how to play it to me inna message i was going to buy a starter kit but um lol .. i want to get my friends into it or just play buy myself its a kit for 20 bucks but i dont get how to create a character and play a solo campaign plz respond thanks
tbirdtman 1 year ago
@vivalexjones you supposed to look like a gamer now? ohh man, youre a complete idiot
WLordnDRanch12 1 year ago
To answer the question at the end of the video: no, I haven't switched. I tried, god, how I tried... but I can't do it.
I'm not the kind of avoids change either, I've started with Classical D&D (red box) and tried every version up to 3.5... ironically, I've adapted very well to every one and, to this day, 3.5 is still my "standard" favorited (with some homebrew changes, mind you).
4th edition, however, is not even a RPG anymore, but a simplistic wargame.
Eshlar 1 year ago
Here's why I play 4th edition. I'm new and haven't played any of the earlier editions.
killawind1287 1 year ago
@killawind1287 Same with me, man.
Bungogin 1 year ago
@killawind1287 Im on the same page as you man.
NeonKnight1022 1 year ago
@killawind1287 that's the best reason I've ever heard to play 4th. Give the others a shot sometime if you want to start running characters with depth.
sandorsbox 1 year ago
so...we should switch because of all the new books we'll "get" to buy? although to be honest i did buy the new forgotten realms books. but i run pathfinder now so i don't have much use for them.
leftfootof 1 year ago
Switch to 4th edition? Not until they actually make one that works. This doesn't.
FoxPlant2006 1 year ago
There is no excitement with 4th edition. There isn't. Gygax died, and Wizards saw this as an opportunity to try to cash in on World of Warcraft.
Classes are bland, rules are too simple, there is no diversity on the classes as opposed to other members of the same class. It holds your hand too much.
If you want to play a game that's a good baby's first RPG, I guess 4th edition is for you. Anyone else should avoid it like the plague.
cobbil 1 year ago
Oh look, he said the "magic word." Balanced does not mean "equal," folks. I've seen more balanced games from less equal rules. RIFTS, for example. RIFTS may seem broken, but all classes have their foils and weaknesses, just as they have their strengths, and not a single one is equal to any other class. As for 4th ed. I've looked at the book. the rules are complicated and the game might as well be D&D miniatures 2nd edition.
jesternario 1 year ago
4th ed sucks. But you are so cute.
SleepingAncient 1 year ago
Man, he gives so many reasons not to bother switching...his main reason is because it's new. Not a bad reason, but once the shiny wears off? Go back to D&D.
Doom314 1 year ago
You Shouldn't switch. Its basically WOW. And You can Find ALL THE 3.5e BOOKS ONLINE FOR FREE! All the reasons he gave WERE BULL! Being a DM IN 3.5 was SO MUCH SIMPLER! You have over 100+ Free online Tools for making Dungeons encounters. You can take all the reasons He gave and they exsist in PATHFINDER 3.5. 4th ED is WORTHLESS! WORTHLESS!
Arimmus 1 year ago
4th is to easy ill stick with 3.5 with all its flaws
okkedulle 1 year ago
@okkedulle Exactly. Too easy.
Snape75 1 year ago
@okkedulle
3.5 what you call flaws I call a real experience. Hell you think 3.5 has flaws? I know a lot of people out there who still play 1st and 2nd edition. 4th is a joke amongst veteran players.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@refuckulate420 thank you. I'm in the "new" generation. Im 18 and have been playing I think 11 years now and I bought the 4th PH and nearly vomited all over it. Its a video game without te video and it takes character customization out the window in my opinion. You are forced to take one path with each class. I play 2nd AD&D because I think even the feats in 3.5 are crap. $th just kills my soul...
WithinTheSound 1 year ago
Our Dungeon Master bought 4.0 and thought he'd try it for a session or two, just to see how it was. We found some horrible things changes, and simple mistakes that just didn't get noticed. For examples, basic orcs had 1 hp, and barbarians had an ability that lets them do damage even if they miss. Also, healing surges allow characters to heal far too much, and far too often. It got to a point where our DM got annoyed and sent a level 14 against our still level 1 characters. We all survived.
TheBurningTrain 1 year ago
@TheBurningTrain The 1 HP monsters you speak of are called minions. It's your DMs fault if he uses too much cannon-fodder and not enough regular monsters. Also, I find it highly unlikely that your level 1 party survived a fight with a level 14 monster. what monster was this? The Level 14 monster with the lowest AC I could find was a Drider Fanglord with 26 AC and 172 HP. If you have minmaxed your primary attack stat to a 20, that means your level 1 character gets a 25 vs AC on a natural 20.
Teksura 1 year ago
@TheBurningTrain
I call bullshit..or dumb DM..or..people who just don't know how to play.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
4th Edition sucks! Long live 3rd Edition in the Pathfinder Roleplaying game!
Phloid82 1 year ago
@RalAzir what I found "in between" is the power level. The changes aren't huge, but they are enough to feel a difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder.
beatboxpeej 1 year ago
Yes, people have always argued and complained when new editions of the game have been released. But never, in the history of D&D, has such a great division among fans been created since the release of 4th Edition. It's one thing to change the rules; it's another thing entirely to radically alter the foundations of the game to the point where it's no longer recognizable as D&D.
TrianiiRanger 1 year ago
I already have switched. Why? Cause you have to adapt to the game, don't make the game adapt to you.
chaosboye 1 year ago
The only thing I like about 4E is the fealing of power. Players feel (and maybe are) more powerful than in 3.5 where a wizard could cast 3 offensive spell and then was stuck with his staff or bow.
What I don't like is the tactic thing. I'm not a tactician, I'm a storyteller. So now I'm planning a Pathfinder game, kind of "in between". I like it.
beatboxpeej 1 year ago
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a new group to play so i haven't been playing for a year, however when i was playing this edition i was having an awesome time!
I've played 3/35 in the past and found the game a little confusing because of the overly complicated ruleset and constant rule checking. 4ed really did eliminate this happening and now 2 years on there are tons of new books which make the game even better through diversity of character options and monsters etc.
Dogbuggery 1 year ago
I might switch over to 4E after I castrate myself so that I might better understand the nature of the character I might play. All of them are mere eunuchs compared to their former glory of 2nd Edition. 4E is a board game masquerading as an RPG. Nothing more.
ThePenWolf 1 year ago
there is no such thing as a "video game on paper" it's called a video game because it's a video! 4th edition is awesome, just like everyone complained about every other edition of d&d when it first came out. they will complain about this one.
fantasticgamesonline 1 year ago
why switch? cuz u cant get the goshdamned 3rd edition anywhere anymore (new anyways) unless you want to print out hundreds of pages!
Dankidus 1 year ago
@Dankidus They're called pdf's, not that it's impossible to find new and mint condition 3rd edition books on the internet.
LokiTheTricky 1 year ago
My 500 cha. review:
1. Unique characters must be WORKED for. Work with the DM to get house rules going. If you want to play hack n slash, you can...but you can really tweak the powers to work in funny, awesome ways.
2. Healing Surges make early-partying easier when you lack a cleric. Its noob friendly, so its good to break in the interested.
3. Negatives to character are erased for the sake of arrays working; faster characters from the ground up.
Overall: Its good; but not epic.
Darkmage1293 1 year ago
AS FOR YOOOOOOOU MR MOVIE MAKER: Is switching really necessary? 3.5 and 4e are both fun (though more fun constructive-wise is 3.5, the combat can get messy which 4e tells you to lock down). I say you could MIX the two systems (Toss in the skills from 3.5 and use the combat from 4e) if you really tried.
But hey, I give credit to 4e; It'll be funny to be an epic level half-elf rogue who can raise the dead and cast arcane magic. (Dilletante and about 4 feats for a palasorcarogue! FEAR ME!)
Darkmage1293 1 year ago
4th edition feels like a glossy, glorified step backwards. It seems intent on inhibiting the creativity that is the trademark of D&D and decreasing flexibility . It also kind of forces you to throw out any of your older source material rather than just re-tooling it a bit for the new system. I say pathfinder is the way to go. It's basically 3.5 with some balance adjustments and fresh material. Not to mention the incredible detail and scope of the campaign settings put forth by Paizo publishing.
Damianlkh 1 year ago
Why play this old dusty game, when you could play Warhammer 3rd Edition? Best RPG yet.
Gallowness 1 year ago
I just got back into table top RPGs after 16 years away from the scene. I came across an entire library of 3.0/3.5 books for a very reasonable price and decided to buy them. Now, I have some friends encouraging me to create a campaign and DM for them. I'm planning on adopting a 2e Planescape setting into a 3.5 campaign. After this video, Yax, I might take a look at 4e and see if there is anything I actual want to implement into house rules.
Thanks
AaronAlso 2 years ago
you are very cute! keep the videos coming.
alakabner 2 years ago
I have and haven't switch, and what I mean by that is I am in a 3.5 gaming group with my close friends and I play in the RPGA game with my 4th ed character
Lanky86 2 years ago
Havent switched!!
Spent too much money on 3.5, but i think the reason you give to switch is a valid one.
Maybe ill get the phb, now that they have it on sale and comes with the phb 2.
jimannothe 2 years ago
Me and my cousin prefer 2nd but his friend Scott is help us kind of merge our current characters into 3.5 rules after the next time we play.
BlackMarshBrigand 2 years ago
Haven't found a good reason to switch from 3.5 yet.
hornetpalooza 2 years ago
This guy looks like a younger version of Jeff Goldblum.
filippo333 2 years ago
i gotta say that i have not liked 4.0 so far. it seems to me that wotc basically produced this edition to relate to a more PC rpg oriented youth as much as a tool for increasing profit. ilove d&d, but i like wotc less cause they are monopolizing the game industry. ill bluntly put it as 4E is for people who werent trained to exercise their imagination or for those who are ok with having their entire game planned out for them. go back to 3.5. if you havent played 3.5, please do. its way better.
10thautumnsfall 2 years ago
i started my D&D playing with 4th edition, and switched to 3/3.5 because of one major flaw with 4E. Too much health, the battles take way to damn long which takes away from the fun of adventuring. 4E is only good if you want a . . . . I can't really think of anything to say about 4E that is a good thing. The dragonborn race is crap compared to the 3/3.5 half-dragon, the battles are too tedious and the overall enjoyment of 4E is far lesser than 3/3.5
SerithValComnion 2 years ago 2
People are playing 4th Edition because it's bright, shiny, and new. Once that novelty wears off, they'll realize what a shallow game it is.
It's a world where even people who know no magic can take a five-minute-break after combat, spend a couple "healing surges", and basically go from being mortally wounded to perfectly healthy after resting for a few minutes.
It's a video game on paper, plain and simple, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
TrianiiRanger 2 years ago 16
I could not have said it better myself. You are a genius to put it in such simple and true language. I am surprised that the so-called smart guys who work at w.o.t.c would put out this junk!
kellystone84 2 years ago
@kellystone84 they're nt..those guys got laid off. apparently some are in paizo now.
bruenor82 2 years ago
That's kind of why I like 4e. Never liked the idea of a GAME where you spent a great deal of time not able to do anything.
The whole resting for hours after every fight may be realistic but could get incredibly tedious.
Beelzeboogie 2 years ago
@TrianiiRanger
I've played both 4th and 3rd edition and the switch for me was nothing to do with the "new shiny" aspect.
I switched because the edition for me was a much more enjoyable experience compared to the constant rule checking sessions that a number of my old groups went through with 3rd. 4ed is steamlined and now after a two years has a nice diverse selection of reading material to utilize allowing a huge amount of customization both for players and DMs.
Dogbuggery 1 year ago 2
@TrianiiRanger totally agree, it's a farce and disgraceful since 3rd edition wasnt out for long before it got repped by 4th. Bullshit
ffxiarcadius 1 year ago
@TrianiiRanger That's the fucking point? You don't wake up in the morning and tell yourself "I'm going to do PCP today! :D". No, you and your friends start with Marijuana as an entry drug. Then you move on up. The same thing for this, NO ONE (and trust me, I tried) is going to look at 3.5e and say "Let's do it." No, you're not going to see guys say "This is too much work" you give 4th ed, they'll love it. It's more THEATRICAL.
BottledFairie 1 year ago
@BottledFairie ...Or we could all just stay off drugs and play 3.5 and earlier editions.
TrianiiRanger 1 year ago
@TrianiiRanger ...It was a really nice metaphor in theory.
BottledFairie 1 year ago
@BottledFairie It was a good metaphor, but lay off the drugs. Haha.
sandorsbox 1 year ago
@TrianiiRanger If dnd contributed so much to video games over the years, why is it wrong for video games to contribute to dnd? Also, if healing surges are your biggest complaint there's the remedy of house rules.
elpfray 1 year ago
@elpfray There's also the stuff like a wizard having daily, per encounter and at will powers, no utility spells what so ever. And a fighter has daily, per encounter and at will powers... that makes him just like a wizard. And if you decide not to build your character like the book recommends, you can still play, but you suck at your chosen profession. 2nd and 3rd edition had unique characters with depth and personality. Now, they're all cookie-cutter immages of some perceived stereotype.
sandorsbox 1 year ago
@sandorsbox Yeah, all the classes have the same format, but that doesn't make them all the same. The way they are used in combat are very different and the way they are use in role-playing should be very different. I find it refreshing as a DM and player that everybody feels useful through an entire encounter rather than the wizard casting his few spells and then sitting in a corner or the fighter going into every battle knowing that they're just going to be using a basic attack.
elpfray 1 year ago
@elpfray But look at classic fantasy stories. What do fighters do... "basic attacks" the only difference is how they are described. Aragorn just did "basic attacks" but the way his battles were described, he was doing differen things with each one. You don't need some special uber attack to make a warrior different, you need a player who can say "I'm going to slash at the first orc. Next Round: I'll run my blade between the next one's ribs." This dumbing down is unecessary.
sandorsbox 1 year ago
@sandorsbox EX: Sure Strike - "you trade power for precision." Now, is that a "special uber attack"? I don't think so - it makes tactical sense and something that a swordfighter would actucally do. I've studied Iaido for 3 years and (by no means am I an expert) I've learned alot of little tricks that are different enough to qualify as something other than basic. As far as description. 4e doesn't take that away - that's still up to the players i.e. "I'll run my blade between the next one's ribs"
elpfray 1 year ago
@elpfray If you've studied Iaido (as I've studied basic Kenjutsu) then you know that the "once per encounter" crap or "once per day" crap is unreasonable. No fighter is going to do something that tires him out so completely that he cannot do the same move again for 24 hours, nor will a figher's feint be so similar the next time that he can't try another feint during a fight with the same person. this micromanaging of a warriors abilities turns the game into WoW with pen and paper.
sandorsbox 1 year ago
@sandorsbox I wouldn't consider it over-exertion, rather the opportunity may not arise again. Aside from the realty of the abilities, you're only refering to WoW in terms of combat, well yeah, it's fun to do more things. The role playing is the same. I'm not saying 4e is the best or anything as I also play a 3.5 and an adnd adventure. They all have their merits and their issues. The big difference - WoW is WoW, already programmed and unflexible (still fun, though), and 4e is 4e, DnD at its heart
elpfray 1 year ago
@elpfray I have to disagree. 4e is not D&D at its heart, because D&D isn't supposed to be balanced to death. D&D isn't supposed to resemble WoW in any way shape or form, stuff like WoW is supposed to remind people of D&D. Characters are supposed to have different abilities but not be defined as "Striker" or "DPS" or "Healer." I realize that those are roles to fill, but a role playing game should have more flexibility than cornholing every class into a perfectly made slot.
sandorsbox 1 year ago
@sandorsbox The classes were always defined wether they were labeled or not. The cleric has ALWAYS been the healer, the wizard has ALWAYS been the striker. They can be built different ways to do different things within reason. I play a cleric/warlock - maybe not the optimal combo, but he makes for a fun character. And why shouldn't WoW remind people of DnD or vice-versa? All rpgs came from DnD so why shouldn't they resemble their creator?
elpfray 1 year ago
@elpfray But in 4th ed, if you don't follow a specific build you're not going to be as good as a character of the same class who follows the build the books prescribe. My point remains, it's turned into a dumbed down video game version of D&D. The character element is gone and all characters are pretty much the same. It's as bland as gruel. Let's not get me started on the races though, with all the dragon-born, elemental this and that and infernal/divine half-breeds.
sandorsbox 1 year ago
@sandorsbox It's not about your character being "good", it's about being interesting, fun, and doing what you want. I'm pretty sure 4e does that... maybe I'm just playing it wrong.
elpfray 1 year ago
@elpfray No, actually, you're playing it right, I will say, if you have fun with it, go for it. I can't stomach the thought of all the characters falling into exactly the same format and being built to such exact specifications to be any good. From one gamer to another though, enjoy it if you like it. I'll stick with my traditional, Tolkienesque D&D styles.
sandorsbox 1 year ago
@TrianiiRanger I was going to weigh in, but you said pretty much everything I would have said. Well spoke sir!
sandorsbox 1 year ago
@sandorsbox Thanks. And I completely agree with you about the character classes; they all seem exactly the same. And the 'per encounter/per day' powers set-up is just absurd. I can just imagine the party's wizard saying "Gee...sorry guys, I know that spell I cast in the last battle was really cool, but I can't use it right now. However, if we happen to encounter another monster, I'll just miraculously have the power to cast it again." It throws any sense of realism right out the window.
TrianiiRanger 1 year ago
@TrianiiRanger I've always liked the concept of the magical incantations running around in a wizard's head and when he speaks them, they vanish just like he had read a scroll, so he has to rememorize them. I'm even ok with a sorceror just having spontaneous magical ability. But in that I am slightly familiar with actual swordplay, I can't imagine a single thing a fighter can do that will tire him out so much that he can't do it again for 24 hours. That's just rediculous.
sandorsbox 1 year ago
@TrianiiRanger And when does the novelty wear off ? I've been playing the 4th edition since it came out and i enjoy it more than 3.5
KiroSmoka 1 year ago
@TrianiiRanger no, video games are a digital version of pen and paper games. DND was before videogames.
rual40 1 year ago
@TrianiiRanger
No. Video games are just table-top games on a screen.
kansaikanadian 1 year ago
@TrianiiRanger Good thing it doesn't take all kinds. Otherwise your opinion wouldn't actually be the law every sentient being in existence operated off of.
HotaruZoku 1 year ago
@TrianiiRanger It's been years bud, still playing it.
shagoosty 11 months ago
I have liked 3.5 and 4.0 though I have to say that I prefer 3.5 myself I have had a much easier time teaching 4.0 to new comers. It is very balanced with concrete rules while 3.5 has more things open to interpretation and options for your classes. They are both fun though. The difference of preference is (from what I can see) how technical you want to be about the game.For casual RP 4.0 is definitely superior but 3.5 has more things to offer for those who like to spend a lot of time customizing
Mirithonomy 2 years ago
also, after rewatching this vid - does anyone else notice it basically runs through a whole list of points saying "4E does this well, but previous versions did it at least as well, if not better" and then finishes with "the one reason to buy 4E is that it is NEW!!!!!!!!11111(evleventyone)" so, its a game that does not - in the reveiwers opinion - add anything too significant to the game but the book is shiney and so therefore it is better?
10671067 2 years ago
my friend hates 4th edition because you can't play as many monster races as you can with the 3.5 edition with the savage species. Other than that he loves the 4th edition as a whole.
Zeffen1 2 years ago
actual you can play as the monster races, the 4.0 monster manual 1 and 2 each detail how to make a PC out of the monsters listed in the books.
BrianAloysius 2 years ago
They should release a new Advanced Dungeons and Dragons for players who want to be up-to-date in the D&D community but don't want to deal with the awful 4E rules. Otherwise I'm not switching, 3.5 until they release something better.
zfatalismz 2 years ago
3rd Edition wasn't Advanced Dungeons & Dragons either, dude.
jacobkosh 2 years ago
4th edition rocks! I've been playing D&D for 29 years this year - and 4th edition has a very similar feel to the games that we used to play back in 1st edition. All you whiney nerdy little bitches that cry out "4th edition sucks!" - don't fucking play it. There are other games that might suit you, but to sit around and bitch just doesn't do anything good.
atari67 2 years ago
dude ... seriously??? I cannot find one thing I like about 4E after buying it morning of release I read through the PHB and was frankly shocked. I already get my stultifying grind quests at work, stick with 3.5 or D20 Modern.
10671067 2 years ago
"Grind quests"? Are you illiterate? There's nothing like that anywhere in 4E, or in any edition of D&D ever made. You're making up idiotic lies out of a misguided sense of loyalty to a game. That's kind of pathetic.
jacobkosh 2 years ago
dude, why are you getting angry? you are getting angry "out of a misguided sense of loyalty to a game. That's kind of pathetic."
10671067 2 years ago
just buy a D&D Rules Cyclopedia for like 30 dollars on ebay...you cant go wrong and it is all you need, the best D&D book ever made.
mysticx0 2 years ago
Just buy World of Warcraft.
4th edition is more like World of Warcraft then the WoW Pen n paper game.
battleroyaleveteran 2 years ago 4