Dungeons & Dragons: 4th Edition

[sfried]

I know this might turn into an ugly topic for die-hard D&D fans, but I want to know what are some of the main differences between the new Dungeon & Dragons ruleset and the old 3.5 one. From what I've heard, everyone can heal now, but I'm not sure. (Wouldn't that take away from the specialization and teamwork from the previous ones?) Also of mention was certain classes no longer make an appearance in the new edition.

My question perhaps would be which edition would it be best for beginners to get into D&D for the traditional "D&D essence"?

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Didn't they remove gnomes from the basic rule book or something?

[Bernard_Monsha]

IIRC the healing bit is quite different and enemy characters are quite a bit tougher. They have an in depth review of gameplay here (http://www.thed6generation.com/index.php?post_category=D6G%20Podcast).

[Ikari Warrior]

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRR RRRRRRRRRRD!

sorry...couldn't resist. It's like a gut reflex whenever "D&D" comes up :lol:

[Soluzar]

My question perhaps would be which edition would it be best for beginners to get into D&D for the traditional "D&D essence"?

NEITHER. If you can, pick up some used copies of the 2nd edition, which was the last time it had anything to do with the traditional "D&D essence". If you can't find those books, try to pick up HackMaster instead. It's basically the first edition, but in a modified form. It's written in the style of a parody of traditional RPG books, but for all that, it is a perfectly playable game if you have the common sense to spot when the book is being serious and when it is being silly.

[Undrave]

The first player's handbook only features classes with the 'power sources' Arcane, Divine and Martial. In other words it has Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard, Warlock and Warlord. The next player's handbook will features other power sources... if I recall it'll include Elemental, Primal, Ki and Mind.

Characters can get a second wind once every encounter. There's also something called 'Healing Surge' ... I think they're related.

I only got the player's handbook yesterday so I can't really vouch for everything.

Also the races available in this first book are Human, Dwarfs, Elves, Half-Elves, Halfling, Dragonborn, Tiefling and some other race who's name I forgot how its spelled...they come from the Feywild and are essential a sort of 'High Elves'.

[max payne]

Meh. I'll just stick with the Planescape campaign setting and the 2nd edition. Plus I'm never, ever forking out money for 3 books so I can just play the bare bones game.

Unless it's the best game ever.

[sfried]

NEITHER. If you can, pick up some used copies of the 2nd edition, which was the last time it had anything to do with the traditional "D&D essence". If you can't find those books, try to pick up HackMaster instead. It's basically the first edition, but in a modified form. It's written in the style of a parody of traditional RPG books, but for all that, it is a perfectly playable game if you have the common sense to spot when the book is being serious and when it is being silly.
Was 2nd edition a more flexible system to work with?

[max payne]

For some reason, the alignments have been changed.

They've completely removed neutral and chaotic good, all neutrals and neutral and chaotic evil.

Instead there's unaligned, evil, chaotic evil, good and lawful good.

:|

[Soluzar]

Was 2nd edition a more flexible system to work with?
Depends on your definition of flexible. I'll explain as best I can, but it might not be entirely clear.

When the third edition was released, it soon became clear that the "big idea" was character customisation. You can level up in multiple classes, and you can then further customise your advancement in each class with "Feats" which are special abilities. Each class gets to choose feats as they level up. The amount you can take is limited, but it does mean that you character will be very much your own individual creation.

That is a kind of flexibility, but it lends itself very well to high-powered characters. That might sound great, but what it tends to mean in practice is a rather rule-heavy game with lots of complex number-crunching and dice rolling. My biggest complaint with it is that it leads to an average of five rulebooks per person, with the optional rules and optional equipment or feats that their character is using to be the biggest badass in town.

That's not really what tabletop RPGs are supposed to be about, in my opinion.

I find that the second edition and prior editions are flexible in exactly the opposite way. Because they are significantly more lightweight gaming systems, with far less complex systems for the players to exploit, they tend to be faster-moving and more open-ended games.

For a good game of D&D, the basic notion is that the Dungeon Master should create the story however he may desire. The rules are really more like guidelines. When the DM rolls his dice behind the DM Screen, the players only hear the result from the DM. If he feels the need to just fudge the result for the sake of a better experience, that's completely acceptable. Sometimes the only reason he's rolling dice is to give the illusion of random events.

He's telling a story, and too many rules get in the way. Obviously when the players roll dice in open view, those results must stand, because otherwise it wouldn't be a game anymore. In truth, 85% of the time the DM will just let the dice fall where they may, but sometimes the story would break unless a particular result is obtained.

The first two editions of D&D were substantially more low-powered, and if played entirely by the book, the first edition in particular does not suggest the DM reward players with enormous amounts of loot. The end of a major quest should naturally result in some kind of glittering McGuffin, but too much treasure can devalue such rewards.

The first two editions were all about fixed classes with limited powers. In other words, it was a struggle. It was a hard game, with opportunities to meet a sudden and grisly death around each corner. If your character died, you roll another one, or promote a henchman or protégé to Player Character status.

The powers each class could develop were limited, but stong. Each would complement the other. The ideal party must be balanced in order to succeed, and it was all about teamwork. The new system promotes the idea that each player should be a solitary engine of destruction.

It's just my taste, but I don't care for that.

[sfried]

The first two editions of D&D were substantially more low-powered, and if played entirely by the book, the first edition in particular does not suggest the DM reward players with enormous amounts of loot. The end of a major quest should naturally result in some kind of glittering McGuffin, but too much treasure can devalue such rewards.

The first two editions were all about fixed classes with limited powers. In other words, it was a struggle. It was a hard game, with opportunities to meet a sudden and grisly death around each corner. If your character died, you roll another one, or promote a henchman or protégé to Player Character status.

The powers each class could develop were limited, but stong. Each would complement the other. The ideal party must be balanced in order to succeed, and it was all about teamwork. The new system promotes the idea that each player should be a solitary engine of destruction.
Thanks for the extensive explanation. I seem to understand a bit more now. It seems the old D&D had more risk at the expense of more reward, while keeping certain principles simple, and the sence that each character class was part of a greater whole since they are made to be specialized with their limited powers.

I don't think I'll be picking up 4th Edition. It's too expensive and as I've played a campaign with it, seems more videogame like. It's ironic, though, despite all of the categorizations people have thrown on RPGs (jRPGs, WRPGs, CRPGs, SRPGs, Roguelikes...) it all boils down to being derivatives of the D&D setup, but now D&D seems to be going the otherway around (which, from what I've heard, copies MMO's more. Perhaps that explains the excentricities of marking, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense).

One thing that computer games don't always seem to get (and this is what I meant by "flexible" Soluzar) is that the DM and/or players can improvize the situation, sill within the rules boundaries, and make it through the campaign. It's essentially what in videogame-speaking would be called "game breaking", but the DM is essentially an arbitrer of what can be allowed and what can't. It's a matter of what seems to be a more interesting in terms of carrying out the storyline, and if it happens to perk the interest of the DM s/he might just roll with it. (No pun)

[Undrave]

Well I'm pretty much a newbie when it comes to DnD. I have a few friends that are into it and play often, but whenever I tried to join I felt myself overwhelmed by their superior experience and the ridiculously long time it took to even create a character. It looked fun and I wanted to play, but it just felt like so much stuff to learn... I picked up the 4th Edition Player's handbook so that I could take this opportunity to be in on the fun and start on even footing.

One thing I like about it is that I feel its much more easier for a beginner to pick up this book than the 3rd edition ones I've read before. If you're unexperienced and aren't sure what path to take, the book proposes standard builds for class and races. It has a very friendly feel to it. They also explain roles in a party and basically how to assemble a balanced party (while leaving plenty of space for experienced players to think outside the box) The use of keywords is also very interesting in that it makes it feel very streamlined. They also reduced considerably the number of skills by grouping many under the same name, making that aspect easier to manage. My experienced friends also found the new character sheet to be a HUGE improvement and be a lot better for keeping track of stuff. Its a minor detail but it does feel clearer.

Another thing I find interesting is that multiclassing is available but only through special feats and work in a specific way.

However I can see merits in just sticking with the third edition for now if you have the books and the experience. I think the 4th edition is just a very good opportunity for newbies to pick up the game more seriously.

For some reason, the alignments have been changed.

They've completely removed neutral and chaotic good, all neutrals and neutral and chaotic evil.

Instead there's unaligned, evil, chaotic evil, good and lawful good.

:|

Because nobody bothers playing THAT precisely their alignements. They just made it more flexible is all.

[sfried]

Well I'm pretty much a newbie when it comes to DnD. I have a few friends that are into it and play often, but whenever I tried to join I felt myself overwhelmed by their superior experience and the ridiculously long time it took to even create a character. It looked fun and I wanted to play, but it just felt like so much stuff to learn... I picked up the 4th Edition Player's handbook so that I could take this opportunity to be in on the fun and start on even footing.

However I can see merits in just sticking with the third edition for now if you have the books and the experience. I think the 4th edition is just a very good opportunity for newbies to pick up the game more seriously.

The funny thing is, I am virtually new to the whole experience with D&D, and I started out with 3.5 (as 4th wasn't out at that time). It's actually easier to grasp the mechanics with a playthrough among exprerience players than reading the handbooks. I was lucky to have great "instructors" to show me what I could or could not do. I still think the character creation is a little complicated, and character sheet could be boiled down more.

The things I don't understand with 4th Edition are "marking" and "healing surges" and how it makes sense in the context of the world. The people I've played with keeping making references to MMORPGs, but I don't play any MMORPGs.

[Undrave]

The things I don't understand with 4th Edition are "marking" and "healing surges" and how it makes sense in the context of the world. The people I've played with keeping making references to MMORPGs, but I don't play any MMORPGs.

From what I can gather, marking is basically picking an enemy you particularly want to kill :p isn't that a term employed in sports strategy? As in basketball each player is assigned to mark another player when playing defensively so they know who to block?

As for 'healing surges' as far as I can tell healers basically have abilities that make you spend your healing surges to regenerate your HP. They represent your body's own natural life force in a way... after a while you just can't heal anymore, no matter how skilled the healer is.

[sfried]

From what I can gather, marking is basically picking an enemy you particularly want to kill :p isn't that a term employed in sports strategy? As in basketball each player is assigned to mark another player when playing defensively so they know who to block?
But why am I penalized for attacking others if I'm "marked" by someone else?
As for 'healing surges' as far as I can tell healers basically have abilities that make you spend your healing surges to regenerate your HP. They represent your body's own natural life force in a way... after a while you just can't heal anymore, no matter how skilled the healer is.
That explains it.

[Undrave]

But why am I penalized for attacking others if I'm "marked" by someone else?


I think its other way around...they get a bonus when you look the other way... I'm not there yet but as far as I can tell abilities 'mark' targets and you get certain bonus for it.

I already got a character figured out: a Half-Elf Warlord! I love that class. Its powers all basically go 'bash enemy, ally gain bonus' :p plus the Half-Elf has the 'Dilettante' racial features that allows you to select an At-Will Attack Power from any other other class (as long as you fullfill any prerequisite needed) and use it as an Encounter Attack Power. I'm so picking the Warlock's Eldrich Blast :p it works with the Charisma bonus and the build I'm thinking for my Warlord has Charisma as the second most important ability so its highly compatible.

:D gonna be cool I think.