First (Level) Impressions: D&D 4e
Submitted by The Game on Monday, 3 March 200861 Comments
(To those of you coming in via search: this article was written after the D&D XP convention, which featured only a limited preview of 4e. This is not a comprehensive review of 4e. –ed)
With four games under my belt, along with talking to some of the designers and developers at length, I’m ready to give you my Critical opinion of D&D fourth edition! Of course, this was only a preview, and things could still change, but many of these are pretty core to the system.
Critical Hits:
- More choices for everyone. Just judging by what you can do at first level, I’m quite looking forward to higher level characters.
- Combat really is more dynamic. More movement around the battlefield, and they managed to do it WITHOUT changing the interesting tactics that existed in 3e. You still get attacked if you withdraw from combat and aren’t careful. You still have to plan your movement around. But there’s more powers and abilities that move around, and more advantages to doing so.
- Diagonal moves are always 1’s rule. Seriously, this might be my favorite change, and one that makes me angry when people say “it’s not hard!” No, it’s not hard to do 1-2-1-2, but it’s ANNOYING, and easy to get wrong. It’s a memory condition that makes it take longer for someone with high movement to take their turn. Good riddance! (Same goes for reach giving opportunity attacks.)
- Combinations and emergent properties. I feel like in 3.x, the powerful combinations came from abusing feat/class combinations, often by ignoring the spirit of the rule. In 4e, the way the different powers in different classes interact gives a good amount of synergy and creates powerful combinations on purpose. As a really minor example, Danny used a power to push a goblin back into a room. This put the goblin within range of the other goblins so that the Wizard could use sleep on all of them. There’s nothing devastating about that combo, but it felt really, really fun, and made me want to seek out more of those situations.
- Durations are so much better now. I’d be willing to bet I haven’t played a game of D&D 3e where someone didn’t ask once per combat, “How many rounds do you think it’s been since I cast this?” Don’t tell me it’s the player’s and DM’s job to keep track… that’s just paperwork, and it’s annoying. Last for the day/for the encounter/until saved/one round is much, much cleaner.
- As far as being like the game that the media portrays it as, D&D is a lot closer now. To explain, if you watch a tv show with an evil wizard, you’ll see him firing energy blasts every round, with heroes ducking behind rocks or deflecting them, or being knocked back. Previously in D&D, that didn’t happen… the wizard would talk about re-memorizing his spells, and warriors would just charge it and start wailing on him. D&D 4e gives that experience for the first time.
Critical Misses:
- Marks and similar mechanics. These are abilities that let you designate a certain foe that has certain effects. This is fine in theory. However, the paladin and fighter’s marks counteract each other, while the ranger’s and warlock’s don’t. Paladin, Fighter, and Ranger can only have one mark at a time, but the Warlock can have many. Ranger and Warlock can only affect the closest enemy, others can only mark certain people. What should be one consistent mechanic not only does a different thing for each class, but acts different in play.
- Easily forgettable bonuses are still in full force. There’s still plenty of “I give you an AC bonus this round”, then “Oh wait, I forgot his AC bonus, it actually misses. Wait, was that this round or last round?”
- The character sheets had a really nicely formatted set of powers BUT there were pieces on the front that I needed that acted like powers. (In fact, in one game, I missed a key ability because it was on the front of my sheet.) I really wanted my “charge attack” to be a power instead of rules elsewhere, my “run” to be a power, my “Second Wind” to be a power, and my “opportunity attack” to be a power. Instead, I became annoyed that I had to flip the sheet over for those things.
- Not sure I like 50/50 saving throws. There are abilities that modify it, but generally, it doesn’t matter how powerful you are, it’s going to be 50/50 to shake off an effect.
- The first level pregen character did not have Cure Light Wounds. Is the spell still in? Was it a casualty of finally declaring (rightly) that Hit Points are abstract? Not sure, but I was disappointed at its absence. (Especially with the Wizard still having plenty of classic power names.)
- I don’t like “milestones” and the way action points are given out. I love the new action point rule- so simple and yet an agonizing decision. But the milestone system feels very much like a “patch” on the 15 minute adventuring day, a way to encourage players to keep going by an entirely OOC reward. Then there’s this whole system where APs are restricted to one a combat, and they get reset? There goes some of the interesting management and tense feeling.
- It could just be that I suck at rolling, but first level felt very swingy. Lots of luck on both sides. I don’t think I can judge that fully until I see later levels, though.
Critical Misc:
- If every DMG came with Mike Mearls to DM for you, everyone would play 4e. He ran by far the most fun session I played, AND looked like he enjoyed every minute he was playing.
- Warlock powers are still hilarious. “I unleash my Curse of the Dark Dream… with bats, snakes, and blood!”
- As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I see nothing to indicate that this edition will be any worse or better for roleplaying than any previous edition of D&D. I will come right out and say that rules can contribute to roleplaying- the two are not independent. But 4e does not change the essential atmosphere of D&D for roleplaying.
- It really is a paradigm shift for D&D in most ways. Some people prefer more simulation in their games, and 4e really isn’t built for it. For me, D&D4e supports the type of play I like. Your mileage may vary, but I keep coming back to one point: there are lots of RPG systems out there that support different styles of play, and if you prefer something that “makes more sense” then I highly suggest checking out one of the many excellent options. For me, I’m going to 4e.
Loading ...
Cool. Be sure to let us know how it goes. I’ll tell you right now that reading it and playing it are two very different beasts, and many people who were put off while reading it were turned around by playing.
Honestly, though, this game may not end up being for you, which is fine. 3e wasn’t for everyone either. d20 Modern is one of my favourite systems, anyways.
You mention that the main audience for 4e is the people who already play. Perhaps at first. But not attempting to bring in new blood is a good way to ensure that your company dies (just as the old blood does eventually).
(By the way, “most” of the older players have not been disappointed. Those that are are the most vocal, of course, and enworld has a disproportionate amount of naysayers. But from my experience, the reaction has been largely positive, especially after playing it. I don’t think WotC has anything to worry about.)
Oh, and that Skritz rant? Holy crap, I couldn’t even listen to that. Aside from his inability to form complete, coherent sentences, when he did form them, most of what he was saying was such uninformed bile that I had to turn it off.
Graham’s last post: Final thoughts after marathon 4e release day events
Another vote from me for d20 Modern being awesome (and a game that I never use a grid for.) In fact, if 4e were to fail for my group for some reason (which seems unlikely) that’s what I’d be running next for sure… hacked a bit.
It’s a nice review, but…
Theres always a ‘but’ right?
You fail to touch upon the most grating issue, to me at least.
Backwards comapatability.
IMO, if we are talking about bringing new players into the game, there is *nothing* 4e achieves in it’s wiped clean slate approach that could not have been achieved with revising and streamlining the current base rules, while still keeping the system backwards compatiable. The truth is though that they would have made waaay less money that way right?
Non compatibility was a deliberate bussiness descision. One made at your expense. You should be angry at that.
I won’t throw out over £600 worth of WotC rule books because someone tells me grapple is too hard (which, for the record, it isnt. It’s actually easy). I do not find 3.5 ‘hard’ personally, but then I am not afraid to read a book and learn a few rules.
With regards to 4e’s much touted ’simplicity’… Give it 2 years and it will be every bit as ‘bloated’ as 3.5 is, and then they will use that as an excuse to sell you an even simpler and even more DungeonQuest like 4.5… The nature of the game demands expansions to generate revenue, so why you all don’t think this will be true with 4e is confusing.
I will not be sold a new game, that I didnt ask for, simply because WotC need to sell more books and minis to bring their profits up to what Hasbro’s board demands them to be. I am not even gonna go into ‘insider’ here… The whole drive to wring every last penny out of the customer base is sickening to me.
4e is not D&D.
It is a *brand new* RPG that has been simply branded D&D to sell copies. This dosent make it ‘bad’, it just means that it casts off just too much of the core game system that I enjoy for me to buy into it.
I personally will be sticking with 3.5 and Pathfinder to get the game engine I want.
Y’know what, I could debate and refute nearly every one of your points, Vesavius, but I won’t, because you pissed me off too early in your comment. All I have to say is:
“You should be angry at that.”
Do NOT tell me how to feel! Do NOT tell me what I should be angry at!
There is absolutely nothing I “should be” angry at!
And this alone tells me you aren’t worth arguing with.
Graham’s last post: Final thoughts after marathon 4e release day events
I’m going to go with Graham’s righteous anger on this one. Not only is there no reason I should be angry, I’ve never bought a version of D&D that was compatible with the old one, and so your argument is flawed from the very beginning. I’ve also written plenty of articles stating why grapple is a bad rule, why saying “this is not D&D” is flawed, why tearing down and rebuilding is the BEST thing you can do for a game design. I’m tired of arguing with all of these drive-by commenters who think it’s their job to cry about WotC on every blog they can find who has anything positive to say about 4e. Unless you have some good argument to make, and actually do your research, I’m not interested in listening anymore. This is just getting ridiculous.
Y’know what, I could debate and refute nearly every one of your points, Vesavius, but I won’t, because you pissed me off too early in your comment. All I have to say is:
“You should be angry at that.”
Do NOT tell me how to feel! Do NOT tell me what I should be angry at!
There is absolutely nothing I “should be” angry at!
And this alone tells me you aren’t worth arguing with.
Well.. I am sorry that you cannot control your anger in order to discuss something rather then yell and hissy fit like this. This alone tells me also that you arnt worth discussing anything with.
And, yes, are are angry at entirely the wrong thing. You are angry because someone on the interweb tells you that you should care about being ripped off, yet you are happy to be ripped off?
/sigh… fanbois…
ok…
I had no idea you were so sensitive.
3.5 wasnt 80% compatable with the old one? It didnt only require a minimum of tweaking to work with my 3e stuff?
really?
Try again?
Wow, you both went to personal insults and tantrums really really fast.
And ‘The Game’… Why the hell do you post public blogs and opinions if you are really so sensitive about this?? You put your opinions in a public place, and you treat those that dare respond like worthless crap that you cant be arsed with?
I didnt attack you, or your work. Quite the opposite. I just dared to mention an aspect of 4e that bothers me deeply and that will stop me purchasing it.
Really guys, why so angry?
I think it’s you both that need to take a step back and get some clarity.
Ah, how did I guess you were going to take the “it’s only an innocent opinion, don’t get mad at me” tact.
Your criticisms are in no way relevant to the post at hand. You are stating an untenable position in “4e is not D&D.” (Fact: It is.) You present your opinions as fact and in a condescending way. Even in your reply post, you are insulting, telling us that we’re getting ripped off, yet you have not made the case for such.
Had you been the first to do so, I might have decided to take a higher road. But the fact of the matter is that I’m sick of people stopping in, making sweeping declarations about why WotC is evil and how 3.5 is better.
I run this blog to share my opinions, and enjoy discussing them with people who want to have a reasonable discussion. Even those who disagree with me usually end up being fairly reasonable. But when someone comes along and states the same old tired “WotC wants to abuse its customers” and similar paranoia, I find that they’re not worth discussing with. Seriously, why the hell do you put your inflammatory opinions in a public place and get offended when people respond in kind?
To answer your one salient point: 1e to 2e didn’t work as a conversion without heavy work. 2e to 3e didn’t work as a conversion without heavy work. 3e to 3.5e was the easiest to translate concepts, certainly, but after trying to run it I found that 3e stuff still required work to translate (work that could be spent actually planning and playing) and I was better off just using 3.5 stuff exclusively without having to worry if the damage reduction was different or the classes were in line power-wise.
Hell, 3.0 to 3.5 could be considered much more of a money grab! Buy all new books to get the same classes, the same races! At least with 4e, I know I’m buying a new game, which is much easier to justify spending money for.
Have fun with Pathfinder. I’m sure you’ll find plenty of players who agree with you there. Good thing there’s different games for those of us who don’t feel like they should be angry, right?
EDIT: Nice job calling us “fanbois” in an edit and once again proving our point that you’re not worth arguing with. I think if you actually bothered to look around the site, or even really read this post, you’ll find that I’m in no way a blind adopter and lay out both pros and cons of 4e.
Some pointless name-calling was redacted.
Hey wait a minute, I thought I was the hot-headed ego ’round these parts?
Let me just say that I have no problem with Vesavius’ opinion, and never even said he was wrong, though I said I would normally attempt to refute his points.
We have had (and continue to have) good dicsussions with the pro and con side both represented. The fact I got pissed off has nothing to do with his opinions.
It has fully to do with the way he stated those opinions, and how he stated that we were wrong for not believing that. It is even more grounded in the fact that Vesavius had the gall to tell us how we “should” be feeling about this thing.
I’ll debate any topic I have an opinion on. I’ll argue with someone who disagrees with me until we’re both blue in the face, and then I’ll buy him a beer.
But I will not tolerate someone telling someone else what they should be thinking.
And if that somehow makes me a “fanboi”…
Hell, I’m not even remotely upset about his opinion about 4e. I don’t know how that makes me a “fanboi”.
Clearly, no matter what, we’ve gone far afield of what the topic and content of the post was about(and in fact, this post is very out of date, simply serving as to first impressions to basically a playtest version of a game that is now out.)
I’m closing comments for good here, since any further comments would be about the final 4e, which is not what this post is about. If you’d like to discuss 4e, I recommend seeking out one of the more current topics on our homepage. Thank you.