Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Difference between revisions

From 2d4chan
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1d4chan>Fatum
(Now with a little bit less trolling)
(Now with 25% less vandalism!)
Line 82: Line 82:
It perhaps will never really die down, there are alot of players who would rather not play 4th cause its a sort of fast food version of 3-3.5 ed. This is not bad, it just means it cuts out alot of things that are great to get to the kick your door down hack and slash. I've given 4th edition a fair shake and while it was not bad as a game, it simply should not replace D&D (or essentially the home cooked meal.) I mean 4th runs alot like a combo of WOW, a card game, and hero scape... All good games, but just not the D&D most people have gotten to like. Also the transition to this new system came too close to the death of Mr. Gary Gygax, so its a safe bet most veteran gamers had a hard time adjusting to the thought of a new game that truly was targeted at new players instead of the old.  
It perhaps will never really die down, there are alot of players who would rather not play 4th cause its a sort of fast food version of 3-3.5 ed. This is not bad, it just means it cuts out alot of things that are great to get to the kick your door down hack and slash. I've given 4th edition a fair shake and while it was not bad as a game, it simply should not replace D&D (or essentially the home cooked meal.) I mean 4th runs alot like a combo of WOW, a card game, and hero scape... All good games, but just not the D&D most people have gotten to like. Also the transition to this new system came too close to the death of Mr. Gary Gygax, so its a safe bet most veteran gamers had a hard time adjusting to the thought of a new game that truly was targeted at new players instead of the old.  


===Known Flaws===
===Criticism===
Some of the criticisms leveled at 4e include:


All of these complaints have genuinely been made on /tg/:
*Power-based combat is too similar to MMOGs, in particular World of Warcraft. This is a serious argument when arguing that 4e is less simulationist and more gamist than previous editions. Whether it should be taken as a negative or positive depends on the person's tastes. Many also feel that the powers themselves are very cookie-cutter in nature, as most rely on a number of stock effects (such as "Slide", "Slow", "Stun", "Spend a healing surge", etc.)
 
*It's too simple.
*It's too complicated.
*Rogues all have the Theivery skill.
*Power-based combat is too similar to MMOGs, in particular World of Warcraft. This is a serious argument when arguing that 4e is less simulationist and more gamist than previous editions. Whether it should be taken as a negative or positive depends on the person's tastes. Many also feel that the powers themselves are very cookie-cutter in nature, as most rely on a number of stock effects (such as "Slide", "Slow", "Stun", "Spend a healing surge", etc.)  
*The fluff descriptions of the powers are silly. The world-fluff is also generally silly - even if some argue it is actually unnecessary to pay attention to the core fluff at all it still feels like a bad writer's fantasy heartbreaker. Examples also include the infamous [[Bear Lore]] check which requires an unusually high Nature Knowledge check to know that ''bears use their claws to attack.'' Give that one a second to settle before you continue reading.
*The fluff descriptions of the powers are silly. The world-fluff is also generally silly - even if some argue it is actually unnecessary to pay attention to the core fluff at all it still feels like a bad writer's fantasy heartbreaker. Examples also include the infamous [[Bear Lore]] check which requires an unusually high Nature Knowledge check to know that ''bears use their claws to attack.'' Give that one a second to settle before you continue reading.
*There are no Bards/Gnomes/Barbarians/Half-Orcs/Thief-Acrobats/Wizards that are worth a shit. Many of these are in fact still available by other means (gnomes are in the Monster Manual and playable, although vastly altered from the gnomes of 3.5) or will be released with later splatbooks such as the PHB II. Wizards are now no more powerful than the other classes.
*There are no Bards/Gnomes/Barbarians/Half-Orcs/Thief-Acrobats/Wizards that are worth a shit. Many of these are in fact still available by other means (gnomes are in the Monster Manual and playable, although vastly altered from the gnomes of 3.5) or will be released with later splatbooks such as the PHB II.
*Characters are too durable, reducing the fear of death and TPK. Which is not entirely true. Many players reported massive player slaughters. On the other hand, a series of playtest combats carried out by [[Fags_of_4chan#.28whatever.29fag|Touhoufags]] show that a party that knows what it's doing and uses group tactics well will cut through encounters several levels higher than themselves like a hot knife through butter.
*Characters are too durable, reducing the fear of death and TPK. Which is not entirely true. Many players reported massive player slaughters. On the other hand, a series of playtest combats carried out by [[Fags_of_4chan#.28whatever.29fag|Touhoufags]] show that a party that knows what it's doing and uses group tactics well will cut through encounters several levels higher than themselves like a hot knife through butter.
*Lack of content and rules to cover various situations are rationalized with "OH YOU JUST LET THE DM COME UP WITH AN AD-HOC SOLUTION AND WING IT" (and a few tables showing appropriate DCs). This wasn't any less viable in 3.5, but in 4E it's a necessity. Many people are puzzled as to how this is played off as a fucking strength.
*Lack of content and rules to cover various situations are rationalized with "OH YOU JUST LET THE DM COME UP WITH AN AD-HOC SOLUTION AND WING IT." This wasn't any less viable in 3.5, but in 4E it's a necessity. Many people are still puzzled as to how this is played off as a fucking strength, while still complaining that it is nothing like traditional RPGs.
*Some feel that the decrease in rules, while welcomed, didn't go far enough. Some people wanted to open up the DMG and see "BULLSHIT IT." Many people want to pay hundreds of dollars for books with no content. Afterall, that's what "streamlined" is, right?
*Some feel that the decrease in rules, while welcomed, didn't go far enough. Some people wanted to open up the DMG and see "BULLSHIT IT." Many people want to pay hundreds of dollars for books with no content. Afterall, that's what "streamlined" is, right?
*Overreliance on unimaginative 'adjectivenoun' naming conventions, for instance: ''Darkleaf Armor: Darkleaves from the gravetrees of the Shadowfell give this armor its protective properties.''
*Overreliance on unimaginative 'adjectivenoun' naming conventions, for instance: ''Darkleaf Armor: Darkleaves from the gravetrees of the Shadowfell give this armor its protective properties.''
*Lack of non-combat content such as crafting. This criticism partially refers to the reduced skill list and partially to the fact that the greatest focus of the game are obviously the Powers which are largely, if not entirely, combat-oriented. The "Adventurer's Vault" item supplement that recently came out adds to the strength of this argument; it reads like a WoW item encyclopedia.
*Lack of non-combat content such as crafting. This criticism partially refers to the reduced skill list and partially to the fact that the greatest focus of the game are obviously the Powers which are largely, if not entirely, combat-oriented. The "Adventurer's Vault" item supplement that recently came out adds to the strength of this argument; it reads like a WoW item encyclopedia.
*The DMG tells noob GMs "don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using rituals" and explains how to abuse and literalise spell wordings, e.g. gives them the advice on how to behave like dicks. Seriously, the [[Golden Rule]] is a problem if it's in 4e.


=See also=
=See also=

Revision as of 17:55, 5 January 2009



Player's Handbook
Should have been the Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual

System

The fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons, the grand daddy of RPGs.

Basics

Nearly every roll consists of making a single D20 roll, plus a modifier, against a target number. Saving throws have been replaced with Defenses that work like AC; the term 'Saving Throw' is now used to refer to a roll to recover from a durational effect.

Character Generation

Chargen is streamlined compared to earlier versions - skills are all-or-nothing, you either have training in them or you don't. Each character gains a selection of Powers which can be used at will, once per encounter, or once per day, in ascending order of power. These abilities often consist of an attack plus some special effect, such as knocking someone prone, setting them on fire, or moving yourself or your opponent.

The character races in the PHB are:

In addition to the races in the PHB, the following player races are in the MM and other sourcebooks: (all of them are "LA +0", to put things in 3.5 parlance):

Character classes in the first PHB consist of:

  • Cleric (Role: Leader, Power Source: Divine)
  • Fighter (Role: Defender, Power Source: Martial)
  • Paladin (Role: Defender, Power Source: Divine)
  • Ranger (Role: Striker, Power Source: Martial)
  • Rogue (Role: Striker, Power Source: Martial)
  • Warlock (Role: Striker, Power Source: Arcane)
  • Warlord (Role: Leader, Power Source: Martial)
  • Wizard (Role: Controller, Power Source: Arcane)

Classes in other books include:

  • Artificer (Role: Leader, Power Source: Arcane)
  • Swordmage (Role: Defender, Power Source: Arcane)

Gameplay

Gameplay is divided into encounters. The GM selects monsters and traps up to a total experience value as recommended for the size of the party, and the encounter plays out as a tactical miniatures game. Non-combat encounters are simplified and consist usually of roleplaying, skill rolls, or a series of skill rolls. XP is awarded for non-combat challenges and quests, as well as for defeating combat encounters.

Each character can take one standard action (such as an attack), one move action, one minor action, and any number of free actions per turn. Each character also gets one immediate interrupt or immediate reaction per round, which may be used outside of the regular turn order. Generally each character will use their standard action to make use of an attack power. Characters are highly specialised as noted above, and fit into MMO-style combat roles of controller (lockdown/AoE), defender (tank), leader (buffer/healer), striker (DPS).

Characters level up from level 1 to 30; with the scope of the game changing every ten levels. At level 30 characters are expected to undergo some form of apotheosis.

Setting

The setting of 4e is highly generic and designed to give the DM a relatively blank canvas to paint on. This default setting consists of a wild medieval landscape in which isolated human and demihuman communities ('Points of Light') struggle to survive after the fall of a greater empire. This provides an explanation for the large areas of wilderness and many ruins for monsters to hide in, and the need for adventurers as opposed to more regulated militias. Which doesn't make any Goddamn sense, but okay.

The DMG contains an extensive section explaining the tropes of the setting and how they might be used, and also suggesting ways in which the DM can deviate from them to make the setting his own.

D&D 4e on /tg/

The reaction of some fans.

Since its announcement 4e has been a source of controversy and incessant trolling on /tg/. Its supporters consider it to have made D&D simple and fun. Its critics have numerous objections to the system and setting, often referring to it as 'shit twinkie' (with the implication that they had been expecting a certain type of D&D goodness and sorely disappointed by what was actually delivered.)

It is virtually guaranteed that any 4e thread will descend into trolling within the first dozen replies. Thus, the best thing to do is ignore the damn thread. Don't read it. Don't post in it, not even to sage. Maybe if people ignore the fucking trolls the shitstorms will die down a bit. This is a lie.

It perhaps will never really die down, there are alot of players who would rather not play 4th cause its a sort of fast food version of 3-3.5 ed. This is not bad, it just means it cuts out alot of things that are great to get to the kick your door down hack and slash. I've given 4th edition a fair shake and while it was not bad as a game, it simply should not replace D&D (or essentially the home cooked meal.) I mean 4th runs alot like a combo of WOW, a card game, and hero scape... All good games, but just not the D&D most people have gotten to like. Also the transition to this new system came too close to the death of Mr. Gary Gygax, so its a safe bet most veteran gamers had a hard time adjusting to the thought of a new game that truly was targeted at new players instead of the old.

Criticism

Some of the criticisms leveled at 4e include:

  • Power-based combat is too similar to MMOGs, in particular World of Warcraft. This is a serious argument when arguing that 4e is less simulationist and more gamist than previous editions. Whether it should be taken as a negative or positive depends on the person's tastes. Many also feel that the powers themselves are very cookie-cutter in nature, as most rely on a number of stock effects (such as "Slide", "Slow", "Stun", "Spend a healing surge", etc.)
  • The fluff descriptions of the powers are silly. The world-fluff is also generally silly - even if some argue it is actually unnecessary to pay attention to the core fluff at all it still feels like a bad writer's fantasy heartbreaker. Examples also include the infamous Bear Lore check which requires an unusually high Nature Knowledge check to know that bears use their claws to attack. Give that one a second to settle before you continue reading.
  • There are no Bards/Gnomes/Barbarians/Half-Orcs/Thief-Acrobats/Wizards that are worth a shit. Many of these are in fact still available by other means (gnomes are in the Monster Manual and playable, although vastly altered from the gnomes of 3.5) or will be released with later splatbooks such as the PHB II.
  • Characters are too durable, reducing the fear of death and TPK. Which is not entirely true. Many players reported massive player slaughters. On the other hand, a series of playtest combats carried out by Touhoufags show that a party that knows what it's doing and uses group tactics well will cut through encounters several levels higher than themselves like a hot knife through butter.
  • Lack of content and rules to cover various situations are rationalized with "OH YOU JUST LET THE DM COME UP WITH AN AD-HOC SOLUTION AND WING IT." This wasn't any less viable in 3.5, but in 4E it's a necessity. Many people are still puzzled as to how this is played off as a fucking strength, while still complaining that it is nothing like traditional RPGs.
  • Some feel that the decrease in rules, while welcomed, didn't go far enough. Some people wanted to open up the DMG and see "BULLSHIT IT." Many people want to pay hundreds of dollars for books with no content. Afterall, that's what "streamlined" is, right?
  • Overreliance on unimaginative 'adjectivenoun' naming conventions, for instance: Darkleaf Armor: Darkleaves from the gravetrees of the Shadowfell give this armor its protective properties.
  • Lack of non-combat content such as crafting. This criticism partially refers to the reduced skill list and partially to the fact that the greatest focus of the game are obviously the Powers which are largely, if not entirely, combat-oriented. The "Adventurer's Vault" item supplement that recently came out adds to the strength of this argument; it reads like a WoW item encyclopedia.

See also

External Links

Retrieved from "http://23.235.193.55/mediawiki/index.php?title=Dungeons_%26_Dragons_4th_Edition&oldid=215847"