What class are you playing Geoff, and how does that class feel compared to earlier editions?
Ranger, twin wielding scimitars, but also ranged with magic daggers. It feels quite different to the same class in earlier conditions. I like it though.. I still have stealth, nature and survival skills. How "rangery" I am is up to my imagination and role playing. As a martial class it's a lot of fun. I'm kinda a glass cannon. Fragile but destructive - especially to "minions" (a GREAT addition for me to the game)
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.
See, I find it odd when people imply or just say that the new edition isn't role playing. You have skills, you dice rolls (if you want to use them) to do a non combat challenge like intimidate, bluff, religion or arcana knowledge. It's up to the players and the dm to decide how role play heavy it is. It's totally up to the imagination. I'm having a lot of fun because my low int ranger sold a very important item (it contained "my luck") just for a handful of magic daggers.. I was roleplaying my low intelligence.... and since then random things keep going wrong. It's not in the rule book, why would it be?
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.
It isn't turning into a MMO. It's a role playing game with fun, more streamlined combat. The encounter and daily powers are a lot of fun. All they really are a chance, once per combat, to use a powerful attack, or a spell (like fireball). Some things once a day (really super attack, big spell) others every time there is a short rest. After about 15 hours of play, I'm loving the new combat style. It's more strategic and the combat powers mean that every class has flavour and fun.
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.)
Absolutely there is! 5 or 6 friends, rolling the dice, drinking beers. Trust me, the look of horror when you roll a critical failure 1 when you really don't need it will never be matched by a computer doing everything. And, of course, the graphics never match your own head.
It's brave of you, Sexist. I always eschewed paladins, finding their powers far too disruptive to normal dramatic gameplay.
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.
I like the die-rolling.. in moderation. It's up to the group though, how often they use them.
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.
I expect counterspelling is coming. The alignments are more streamlined, but.. again.. it's up to you how you play your character. It's called role playing for a reason
I approve of the strategy.. it's much better than the "broken builds" problem of 3rd Edition. This time you need to work as a team, and use strengths and not just design a build that always does the same thing.
D&D has always been a tactical game. It's a weird amalgam of Gary Gygax, who is at heart a strategy gamer, and Dave Arneson, who at heart is a roleplayer. This weird amalgam is kinda what made it work. Some groups are roleplay heavy, some are tactics heavy, and most are somewhere in between. It's this amalgamation that makes it appeal to a wider variety of people than other types of roleplaying or strategy games.
Right! Bottom line is, I'm having a lot of fun
