Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chaoticag]

If you really want my advice, you should probably give 5th ed a chance. In fact, I also recommend Pathfinder as well, but 5th ed is simple and straightforward, while pathfinder is more supported at the moment and has a lot of customization options. (That being said, I played 5th ed in a convention game where we had 5 other players, and we were all given fighters, while most of us was doing their own different thing. You have a lot of wiggle room in that edition still).

Now, I do like 4th edition, because combat there was something I found fun, but I can't recommend it to start because:
1. You have too many options in combat. This is a thing that sounds good, but if people are not familiar with their characters, and outside of a few people I played 4th with, it seems the majority don't tend to be, then turns can drag on for a long time.

2. 4th ed seems to be knife edge balanced. This makes winging monsters and preparing for sessions take up more work unless you already have some GMing experience before, and even then, there's no easy in book method for making monsters or making sure what to keep in mind when you do.

3. Price and availability. 4th ed costs money, and 5th edition dnd has free starter stuff on wizards website, while pathfinder rules are available for free more or less, along with most of their classes due to the d20 licence. What's not fun is spending all that money and finding out it's just not for you, so this should give you a heads up.

[sambojin]

Was there ever any reasonably decent computer games made out of the 4th edition rules? It seemed almost made for hack and slash RPG games, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[Flying Dice]

Not that I'm aware of.

That's the one thing I never got: why make 4e a DnD game, apart from ease of sales? It's got so little in common with any other edition, even accounting for the other inter-edition differences.

[scriver]

There was some game, but it was only loosely based on 4th ed rules.

[chaoticag]

Was there ever any reasonably decent computer games made out of the 4th edition rules? It seemed almost made for hack and slash RPG games, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I wish there was. Atari lost the licence to publish DnD games, so we didn't get another Neverwinter Nights, but Neverwinter instead. I'd have liked something like a 4th edition ToEE thing which was turn based, but I doubt it would happen, and most MMOs don't gel with me. Neverwinter took a lot of liberties with the rules of the game to make it more WoW like last I heard too. Oddly enough, the DnD arcade games rereleased on steam, Shadow over Mystara and the like. Worth mentioning since it felt like an actual DnD beatemup, and the rerelease included some art that was in 4th ed for some reason.

Not that I'm aware of.

That's the one thing I never got: why make 4e a DnD game, apart from ease of sales? It's got so little in common with any other edition, even accounting for the other inter-edition differences.

Well, change is in the eye of the beholder here. I wouldn't say the differences between 3rd and 4th are as big as the differences between 2nd and 3rd. Each edition more or less tried to iron out rules inconsistencies and the previous editions biggest problems. 3rd was a reaction to 2nd, and 4th was a reaction to 3rd while 5th was a reaction to 4th, where the big goal of 4th was meant to flatten the tiering of 3.5 so that you feel less restricted in the classes you chose, and provide more combat options for non-casters so they don't feel "as left out of the action" (again, eye of the beholder here). Meanwhile, 5th edition brought things down to about the simplest thing you can consider a Dungeons and Dragons game to be, and one of the developers about, err, 6, 8 months ago stated that it's goals was to be the most modular DnD edition, so that you can play a 4th edition style character next to a 3rd or 2nd edition character, at least in spirit and not power level.

[GiglameshDespair]

To actually answer the question, yeah, 5e is pretty solid. I like it more the more I look.

[Orange Wizard]

5e is pretty good. WotC seems to be putting out splatbooks really slowly though, so there's not a huge amount of content. You can always homebrew or refluff existing stuff though.

3.5e is best if you want to always be able to find something silly enough to fulfill your most insane ideas, and still optimise the holy snot out of it. It's incredibly bloated in terms of rules, though. My group ignores most of them because there's too much stuff that doesn't really add to the fun.

virtual bad dragon dildo sparring

Yeeeeeeeessssssssssss

[sambojin]

I'm not sure they've managed the modular approach for a combined edition, but rather have given just enough options for no-one to be left out completely.

I just approach it as a new edition with lots of good concepts from the older ones. Pretending that 2nd edition, 3.5 edition, and 4th edition players will all be happy with this edition so far, is kind of pointless. They're all very different games. That there's a bit there for everyone, with no-one left completely hung out to dry, is nice though.

[Spehss _]

That's the one thing I never got: why make 4e a DnD game, apart from ease of sales? It's got so little in common with any other edition, even accounting for the other inter-edition differences.

I think a roguelike based on DnD rules might be cool. Incursion may have that niche covered though. I wouldn't know, I haven't learned how to play Incursion.

[Flying Dice]

That's the one thing I never got: why make 4e a DnD game, apart from ease of sales? It's got so little in common with any other edition, even accounting for the other inter-edition differences.

I think a roguelike based on DnD rules might be cool. Incursion may have that niche covered though. I wouldn't know, I haven't learned how to play Incursion.

Yeah, I'd be interested in something like that. Heh, there's actually a web program that simulates games of the original D&D for a single player in a crude way, randomly generating dungeons and encounters, then sending you back to town when you inevitably run away. The nominal goal is to scrape together enough gold to buy a tavern or something, but the way it actually plays out is repeated horrible deaths.

[Sergarr]

That's the one thing I never got: why make 4e a DnD game, apart from ease of sales? It's got so little in common with any other edition, even accounting for the other inter-edition differences.

I think a roguelike based on DnD rules might be cool. Incursion may have that niche covered though. I wouldn't know, I haven't learned how to play Incursion.

Yeah, I'd be interested in something like that. Heh, there's actually a web program that simulates games of the original D&D for a single player in a crude way, randomly generating dungeons and encounters, then sending you back to town when you inevitably run away. The nominal goal is to scrape together enough gold to buy a tavern or something, but the way it actually plays out is repeated horrible deaths.

Repeated horrible deaths are an important feature of original D&D!

There's a reason why Gygaxian is an adjective.

[MrRoboto75]

I'd say dark souls is pretty close to old school D&D.

[Neonivek]

4E was not much of D&D at all. Combat resembled WoW boardgame. You basically had to position yourself correctly and push several available action buttons in correct order to be effective.

I never got this comparison... A lot of what 4e combat was is that you wanted to manipulate and effect the battlefield in your favor often requiring you to hold back on skills until the opportune moment. Then when one of your good skills land it opens things up and the battlefield evolves right there.

While in WoW you basically just cycle through all your skills basically playing a keyboard gun... Position changes only occurred for special epic bosses who basically force you to move.

In fact 4e is by far more strategic then WoW and dnd all editions combined.

But I think I know why people make the comparison when I think about it... because you "Use moves" and that is it. It is a blind derogatory statement.

[Cthulhu]

It absolutely is.  It's a knee-jerk reaction to something that isn't the way things used to be.

If anything 3e is more like WoW, at least for non-mages.  You know what my barbarian does in 3e?  He waits for his turn, then he uses a power attack.  Then he waits for his next turn.

[wereboar]

Not blind at all.

My main gripe is that while 3.x were a huge toolbox allowing to for countless mechanical options and also left room for imagination and ad hoc rulings in combat, 4E pretty much forced you to cycle through a handful "moves" you had on you charsheet. Hence MMO comparison.

If anything 3e is more like WoW, at least for non-mages.  You know what my barbarian does in 3e?  He waits for his turn, then he uses a power attack.  Then he waits for his next turn.

That's sort of hilarious because you obviously try to play 3e with 4e mentality, i.e. using character's best "move" over and over until encounter ends.
In 3e so many other options are feasible in combat and it's a shame you never discovered them.