Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Dungeons and Dragons just came out with its 4th edition last month. Has anyone taken a look at this yet? I was flipping through the Player's Handbook at Barnes and Noble the other day, and it looked radically different from 3rd edition. My impression that the differences between 3.5 and 4th edition are greater than the differences between AD&D first edition and 3.5.

Part of this may simply be because they formatted the book quite differently compared to the first three editions. For example in the past they used to put all of the spells in the back, but now they put all the wizard spells under the wizard class description, all of the cleric spells under the cleric class description, etc.... However there are still look like a lot of changes.

There are only eight classes now. They took out Barbarian, Druid, Monk, Sorcerer, and Bard and added Warlock and Warlord (which is closer to cleric than fighter, in spite of the name). Hit points are fixed per level now instead of rolled. Every classed gets so many "healing charges" per day, so they have some ability to heal themselves. Gnome and Half-Orc races were deleted, while Dragonkin and Tiefling races were added.

All classes have powers now. For example even the fighter gets several powers at first level and then requires more regularly. Abilities are defined as either "at will", "once per encounter", or "once per day". "At will" powers tend to be minor, "once per encounter" are moderately powered, and "once per day" powers tend to be your most powerful abilities. Like for a fighter, an "at will" power might give a +2 to hit, a "once per encounter" ability might do an extra die of damage, and a "once per day" ability might do an extra die of damage and give the foe a penalty for the rest of the combat.

Wizard spells and spellbooks look pretty different. Spells are basically just like the powers that everyone else gets, and I think you only get them when you go up a level. I'll have to check again, but I don't think you acquire new spells by capturing spellbooks. Instead I think the Wizard gets twice the powers of the other classes and then picks which half he'll use that day. That is how he picks his spells. Other than that spells work just like powers I described above. Like Magic Missle can be used at will, while Fireball is once per day.

Overall it looks like a very different system that what I am used to with D&D. I wouldn't mind trying it since I like trying new things, and while it might be very fun I'm not sure how much it will "feel" like D&D. Anyone else have some opinions or additional info they'd like to share about this?

[Geoff]

Been busy playing it with a group by Skype. It's good... tighter focus, and the other classes will follow in due courses.

All the classes, melee included, get some "magic" feel by having encounter and daily powers.

Other than that, as always, it's up to the group how much they roleplay.

So far, I'm impressed.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

What class are you playing Geoff, and how does that class feel compared to earlier editions?

[htb]

Judging by substantive Amazon reviews, the new edition draws sharp opinions from rules-oriented groups. Those who approve either reject that Wizards of the Coast seeks to appeal to the MMO demographic; or were already practicing grid-based combat.

My groups, loosely based on Second Edition rules, were animated by roleplaying; and, in the stages of preparing for the first group in nearly ten years, I'm fine-tuning a highly simplified and amalgamated system, so remain pretty ambivalent. Though I agree that such a radical alteration, however strong, probably shouldn't be called Dungeons & Dragons, Wizards of the Coast have certainly established system credibility with Magic: The Gathering.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Originally Posted by htb

Those who approve either reject that Wizards of the Coast seeks to appeal to the MMO demographic; or were already practicing grid-based combat.

Yeah one think I was thinking as I was flipping through the books is that 4th ed. resembles an MMO more than earlier editions. On the one hand this seems like it makes D&D even less realistic than before. On the other hand D&D was never terribly realistic even for a game that takes place in a fantasy world. Even in 1st edition a high level fighter could jump off of a mountain top, take about 70 points of damage, and then rush into battle.

I'm not sure if it's wise to follow the MMO trend though. I don't think D&D can beat MMO's at their own game. But there are plenty of things that D&D can do that MMO's can't. D&D ultimately only has one limitation and that is the DM's imagination, which is something MMO's will never be able to beat.

[htb]

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

I'm not sure if it's wise to follow the MMO trend though. I don't think D&D can beat MMO's at their own game. But there are plenty of things that D&D can do that MMO's can't. D&D ultimately only has one limitation and that is the DM's imagination, which is something MMO's will never be able to beat.

I agree. Every one of my memorable sessions happened by accident; where improvisation was aloft on the suspension of disbelief and every member of the group productively responded to one another. It's one of the reasons why Second Edition is where I return to for centering and inspiration. The simple, earnest and anecdotal guidance in narratives -- roleplayers talking to roleplayers -- can't be found anywhere else.

[Zergling]

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

I'm not sure if it's wise to follow the MMO trend though. I don't think D&D can beat MMO's at their own game. But there are plenty of things that D&D can do that MMO's can't. D&D ultimately only has one limitation and that is the DM's imagination, which is something MMO's will never be able to beat.

I've only done computer RPGs (no tabletops), but this does seem true from reading about D&D. There doesn't seem much point in doing a tabletop MMO type game when you can do one on a computer with pretty graphics and microchips to do all the combat calculations. (Maybe there's a social part to it.)

[Hexis]

Me and a few friends have been playing since it came out, and so far are reallying enjoying it. Me and the DM have played since 3rd edition and are haveing to teach everyone else the fundamentals of D&D.

The only problem thus far is that we havent established a core group, im the only one who has shown up to every session. Everyone else is always busy or working, so theres about 7 guys (not incudeing me) that keep switching off every weekend or so. And this of course causes problems with roleplaying which is what the games all about. Especially cause we cant even really get into very hardcore role playing till all the new guys are comfortable in the rules and understand how to play.

But it is drastically different from 3rd, and 3.5. They only thing that is really the same is that classes are still called classes and races are still called races. It is extremley fun though, but it is still going to have to grow on me. At the moment I still prefer 3.5. But there are several things about it that after experienceing will never make 3.5 the same again. For one the infinite spells a wizard can cast now, before they where just way too under powered.

And yes there has already been official word that barbarian, sorceror, and either druid or monk (if not both) will be comeing out in later books, most likely a PHB2.

And to fill you in on the whole spell thing, wizards do still have spells and they are still in the back but they are now called "Rituals". A wizards normal "Spells" are his powers. Which are the same as a paladins "Prayers" and a rouges "Exploits".

And in the current campaign im playing a Dragonborn Paladin of Bahamut. So far im really enjoying it but havent had much chance to role play him yet or really get into his character. Hopefully ill be able to soon, but as for battle he rocks.

[htb]

It's brave of you, Sexist. I always eschewed paladins, finding their powers far too disruptive to normal dramatic gameplay.

Originally Posted by Zergling

There doesn't seem much point in doing a tabletop MMO type game when you can do one on a computer with pretty graphics and microchips to do all the combat calculations. (Maybe there's a social part to it.)

That's why, while I enjoy the mathematical interplay of rules, quickly found most dice rolls to be impracticable -- and therefore impractical with a fast-moving, highly social group.

[murkrow]

No more lawful evil, no more counterspelling...

I don't approve.

They seem to be interested in making a strategy game out of D&D.