Disclaimer: I do not like 4th edition DnD. At all. I will simply describe it. You may have my opinion at the end in a summation only.
There’s new races and they took out old ones (unless you buy expansion books). The game is more streamlined, but rather restrictive in terms of what you can do. It is very definitely all about combat, and other things you do are somewhat extraneous. It is more-or–less balanced, and every class is prety flashy. Everyone is basically a spellcaster now, with abilities which “cool down” per encounter mostly. So fighters do positional things and special attacks, Rangers do archer attacks, Paladins and Clerics to healing (often with other special benefits), etc.
It’s kinda like playing an MMORPG, good and bad.
Opinion: It’s… ok. let us simpyl say that WotC had something very specific in mind when they created it, and it’s not at all classic DnD. In fact, they apparently wanted to be sort of punk/gangsta “hardcore” DnD, and I think it comes off pretty laughable. Ultimately, the system isn’t bad, per se, but it creates some truly ludicrous results at times, renders whole categories of fun tricks and ideas useless, and makes the classes very similar in ultimate effect. There’s very little point to doing anything except min/maxing with exotic classes, much like 3rd edition DnD.
I think it’s both too bland in the rulesset and too specific in terms of setting. For Fantasy games… I still prefer our Eclipse 3.5 rules by a huge margin. For non-fantasy games - well, DnD never really worked that well outside of fantasy.
There are, like every version of D&D (including the appalling mess that was 2E), good and bad points. There are lots of innovations which are great, and for the DM it’s a godsend - it’s very easy to prepare for and run, and monster stat blocks are easy to understand and use. None of the three page long stat blocks which required a PHD in that specific stat block to run effectively.
All character classes get stuff to do - in previous version, the wizard got to do cool spells, while the fighter just rolled to hit over and over again. Now the fighter gets to do fighting maneuvers, the rogue gets to do sneaky maneuvers, the archer gets to do cool archery maneuvers, and so on.
They made - in my opinion - a mistake in trying to codify skill use into “skill challenges” which overly structure a skill-based encounter. Many DMs have trouble running these and making them interesting; not to say it can’t be done, but I think the skill challenge system was a misstep.
DRAGON and DUNGEON magazines are both online only now. With that subscription, you also get access to an online character generator and a bunch of other tools.
Combat is more varied, and geared more towards mobility. Combatants move about more, put various conditions on each other, and so forth. One of the weaknesses in the combat system is that it can tend towards “grind” - the fights can go on too long, and a little houseruling often helps with that.
Overall, it’s pretty good in my opinion. It is a bit of a departure from what you’re used to if you only played 1E and 2E, so you might prefer 3E to 4E.
I have a friend who plays it and loves it, and he’s been trying to get me to join his group. I’ve flipped through the rulebooks at his house, and I haven’t found them very enticing.
What turns me off most about the game is the art and the aesthetics. It just doesn’t seem arcane and mysterious anymore, which is what attracted me to 1st Edition AD&D in the first place. In fact, it seems more childish than anything else. The illustrations, and the pre-painted miniatures especially, seem like something from a line of toys.
My friend really does enjoy playing it, and he’s really happy with the “everyone as a spell caster” effect that smiling bandit mentioned above. He started playing AD&D from the 2nd Edition though, so this is the third iteration for him. I started at 1st Edition, and I really don’t want to learn another set of rules for a fourth time for the same game.
To be fair, it’s not exactly a problem, but it’s a definite stylistic choice which not everyone likes. I don’t at all mindn games where everyone is a spellcaster… but usually I prefer that they get actual magic and have a universe which supports that notion. I think DnD 4 tries to play it both ways, which annoys me. Everyone does very similar things, but some are “magic” and some are not. Magic is just very dull in it, mostly a way to kill some people when handy, or accomplish whatever pre-set ritual the DM throws in.
One nice thing about early editions was that while they had rules for some things, the game was pretty open beyond that. It demanded, and encouraged lots of experimentation and impromptu actions. This is a critical factor I think is missing from DnD 4.
I haven’t actually played 4th Ed, but I’ve gotten the impression that instead of a RPG it’s more of a tactical fantasy wargame. If you know D&D history, that would be it making a full circle back where it started from.
For a proper roleplaying campaign I’d rather play 3.5th edition, or maybe whatwasitcalled, Pathfinder?
Interesting. So I’m pretty much going to be learning a whole new game, with races and classes that are nothing like what I dealt with before. ok, good to know.
I’ll be checking this again in the am, and looking forward to seeing what more of you say.
Macklin doesn’t hate it, which is a bit plus for me, but I haven’t talked to him about it in any detail as of yet.
I second that viewpoint from my brief exposure to it. I describe it as “brief moments of plot development separated by multiple games of Risk”.
Everything in the Player’s Handbook is about combat. One the one hand, this addresses some of the issues the old editions had with some character’s being non-actors once combat started. Now everybody is a killing machine. But I felt like the “role” aspect was almost absent, in favor of the “roll” playing.
Nothing prevents a really good GM from running a great story with character development, but without a framework to build on, it is that much harder for the GM.
Combat is very prescribed and requires a grid map with miniatures. Gone are the days of chaotic descriptions and uncertainties. Every decision can be planned with the utmost forethought and calculation. One the one hand, this alleviates the times where GMs and players could get into arguments about who is standing where and what they can do. But it took me out of the game.
I like tactical wargames, but I am looking for something different with D&D. I want to feel like I am in the battle. The omniscience of the angles, the endless measuring and the optimizing make me feel detached from the fray.
With 5’ x 5’ squares, the smallest possible room is 20’ by 20’ and that would be a pretty stupid combat. So, you are constantly walking down massive corridors and entering rooms that put the Great Hall of Moria to shame.
In its defense:
I really like the idea of minions with good to-hit scores but only 1 hit point. It is a great way to make a party feel threatened without making every fight end with a need to rest and heal.
If you have a creative but combat focused GM and party, you can have a blast. The opportunities for wild and crazy terrain, obstacles or inclement factors abound. It won’t necessarily make any sense, but it can definitely be fun.
Short answer:
I think your son will love it. At that age, my idea of role playing was “Tiamat walks around the corner, roll initiative.” Nowadays, I want a little more plot and non-combat action. D&D has always struggled with that, and 4th Ed. pretty much gives up on it.
I’ve been running a 4th edition campaign for my kids and their friends since it came out. I’ve decided I hate it so much I’ve spent the last few months writing my own fantasy RPG rules. We just made the switch to the new rules last week.
4th edition is a very well-balanced rule set, but it feels very homogenized. Each class has lots of different skills, but most of them boil down to different ways to pump damage points into enemies more quickly. So if you want a very structured and tuned system for staging fantasy battles, it’s great. But it lacks the sort of open-ended rule hooks that encouraged players to try cool things just for the hell of it. As a result, it feels sort of soulless to play.
And needlessly complicated. The kids in the group had trouble keeping track of all their different skills and abilities, and since the rules are so well-balanced, not making use of every bonus that’s available to you makes encounters significantly harder.
I’ve played every edition of D&D / AD&D. I like 4E reasonably well.
Yes, “every class is a spellcaster”, in effect. All classes have attack “powers” which fall into one of three groups:
At-Will. You can use these all day long. One nice thing about this change is that it means that spellcasters (especially low-level ones) don’t become semi-competent crossbowmen after a few rounds of combat (i.e., once they run out of spells). Most characters will have two at-will powers (humans get a bonus one).
Encounter. You can use a particular encounter attack power once per encounter (combat). They generally are somewhat more effective than at-will powers (they usually do more damage, and / or have a greater overall effect). First-level characters have one encounter attack power, you gradually gain more as you go up in level, to the point where a high-level character will have four different encounter attack powers.
Daily. These are your “big guns”. You can only use a particular daily attack power once per day. They’re your most effective attacks, and they usually have some effect even if you “miss” with them. Much like encounter powers, a first-level character will have one daily attack power, and will eventually wind up with four different daily attack powers.
You also have “utility powers”. These are abilities which aren’t directly attack powers, but may have use within combat (or may be really only useful outside of combat). Examples of utility powers which would be familiar to you as a player of earlier editions include Invisibility, Bless, and Levitate. Some utility powers are usable at-will, some are only usable once per encounter, and some are only usable once per day. As with attack powers, characters gain more utility powers as they go up in level.
The combat system is, indeed, very tactical (but, frankly, it’s not really any more tactical than 3.x was).
As far as criticism that 4E goes away from role-playing: are the 4E rulebooks really any different from those of prior editions, in that way? IMO, it’s always been that roleplaying is really more a function of what the DM and the players put into it, in characterization, description, and imagination, rather than something which they find in the rulebooks. I don’t find roleplaying any more difficult in my 4E games than I did in my 3E games, or 2E games, or 1E games.
One thing that I will note: in prior editions, it was usually pretty easy to get a new player involved in a game. You gave them an easy-to-play character class (such as a fighter). It was pretty straightforward: “you attack, you roll to hit, you roll damage. Rinse and repeat.” In 4E, there’s no such thing as a “simple” class – even fighters have relatively complex maneuvers and abilities.
All character classes in 4E fall into one of four roles, or archetypes (I don’t play MMORPGs, but friends of mine who do tell me that this is pretty much a direct port from how many MMOs work). A 4E game usually works better if the party has some diversity in its roles – a party of all defenders or all leaders will be able to survive combats pretty easily, but it’ll take them forever to eliminate opponents, while a party of all strikers can dish out a ton of damage, but will be very fragile.
Defenders are your tanks. They are almost always meleers, and tend to have good defenses and a lot of hit points. They have abilities that draw the enemies’ attention to them (and can punish an enemy who chooses to ignore them in favor of squishier targets). They tend to be pretty good at dishing out damage, though they usually aren’t the best at this. Fighters and paladins are archetypical defenders.
Strikers are “glass cannons”. They deal a lot of damage (typically to a single target at at time), but they usually have weaker defenses and hit points (especially when compared to defenders). A lot of strikers are best at attacking from range (either with ranged weapons, or with spells), though there are some who go into melee. Rangers and rogues are archetypical strikers
Leaders are good at helping the rest of the party, while still being reasonably effective in combat in their own regard. They heal and “buff” themselves and their allies, as well as occasionally hampering their enemies. One of the nice changes from earlier editions is that many of a leader’s “healing” powers are “minor actions” – that is, a leader can cast a healing spell and still make their own attack in the same round. Their defenses and hit points usually aren’t as good as defenders, but they aren’t as weak as strikers in this regard. Some leaders work best in melee, while others hang back and attack from the back rank. Clerics and bards are archetypical leaders.
Controllers specialize in effects that shape the battlefield (to benefit their allies and hamper their enemies). Many of their attacks target multiple enemies at once. Their defenses and hit points are on the weaker side, but most controllers prefer to not be up close and personal with enemies, anyway. Wizards are archetypical controllers.
On the other hand, this is just another facet of the whole “no level-inappropriate encounters” thing that 4e has going. In earlier editions, when you’re low-level, it will often be a perfectly rational decision to run away from a handful of goblins, but then, by the time that you’re about 10th or so, you can take on literal armies of goblins single-handedly. It really gives you a sense of progression: “Wow, I’m such a badass now that I can slaughter things that once would have kicked my butt”. In 4e, though, you start off being able to slaughter armies of minions that are the same level as you, and when you get to high levels, you’re still slaughtering armies of minions that are the same level as you, with about the same difficulty. It doesn’t really feel like you’re progressing as much when you’re just continuing to do the same things you’ve always done.
The way I usually explain it, 4e is actually a new version of Basic D&D, not of Advanced D&D.
It is a framework for kicking down doors and defeating monsters. Anything you want to do besides that is up to you. It’s not going to tell you that you can’t build a boat because you didn’t put enough points in boatbuilding. The game doesn’t give a crap if you can build a boat or not. Talk it over with your DM. While the game does have skills, they’re all action oriented. Even the knowledge skills all have some ‘identify a monster’s weakness’ application.
That’s not to say the game doesn’t have roleplaying, or even that it discourages it. It encourages it in the exact same way Basic D&D did: by leaving it entirely up to you. It is freeform in nature, whereas AD&D was increasingly restrictive in nature.
On the other hand, D&D Insider is the worst thing ever and I have to go meditate and calm down just for having even brought it up. Raaaaaaaaaage.
I read a quote from one of the 4E designers (who had worked on 3.x as well), who noted that (I’m paraphrasing here), in 3.x, they had made the best “realistic” set of rules they could for D&D. In 4E, rather than try to make a better set of “realistic” rules, they chose to make rules which supported a more over-the-top style of game.
That’s just adventure design. If you want to allow your 20th level character to fight 1st level goblins, you can.
The guidelines are on how to create challenging encounters, which can be something of an art. I don’t think they needed to write guidelines on how to create easy encounters.
Well, that’s one side of it, but the other side is that a good DM will include some encounters that are too challenging for the PCs, that they should have to run from. Or of course attempt to face up to it, it’s their choice, and if they do succeed, it’s all the more sweet.
And the whole minion thing just doesn’t make sense in the first place. Why should it be that the goblin soldiers the BBEG has hundreds of would be any different from the skirmishing band of three goblins you fought way back when you were starting out? Especially since the BBEG probably formed his army in the first place by pulling together a bunch of those skirmish parties?
Well, again, that’d down to individual adventure design/plotting. Saying that the army now suddenly has 10000 15th level soldiers is bad adventure design/plotting/DMing. You should be able to justify what you include in your game, and an army of 15th level soldiers would be pretty hard to justify.
No, you need to use exciting devices like plots, etc. The character aren’t fighting the grunts any more, they’re fighting the Emperor’s Royal Bodyguard or his trained team of Imperial Gladiators.
Sure, you could have a scene where character sget to slaughter hundreds of 1st level soldiers if that’s your bag. I think I’d find that tedious after the first minute or two,a nd would rather just have some narration at that point.