4Edition. Do you like it?

[Kaitou Kage]

Forum, my friend, forum... typically, from my own experience of 6 years of play-by-post, forums tend to attract the roleplayers more so then the powergamers

Certainly, but it does not discount the fact that 4e works just as well as 3.X for heavy roleplaying. The same matter arises in all editions, so you can't really use that as "proof" that 4e is a bad roleplaying system. If anything, it proves that 4e is still great for it.

The munchkins are going to exist in any system. That doesn't make the system bad for roleplaying or establishing a campaign theme.

Also, my experience is that 4e combat, at least, works much better in a "real time" situation than a forum because there are a lot more interrupts and immediate reactions in 4e. They're manageable in forum play, but a bit wonky, certainly not as graceful as 4E tabletop or 3.X forum. Your mileage may vary.

[Lanus]

Ironnically with the position combat system, the actions points and the out-of-combat resolution of 4e seem harder to put to a PC game than 3rd edition. I think 4e will pose a greater challenge than the precedent edition to be portray in video game.

I had a discussion with a friend who tought the same and we both arrived at the conclusion that 4E can only work 'as intended' in a tactics-style game. Turn based, grid, preferably single player, because you have to handle marks, inmediate interrupts, and powers that do two or three different things and this would be very very hard to do in real time.

3.x was perfect for traditional RPGs

[Nathan of the FoS]

Certainly, but it does not discount the fact that 4e works just as well as 3.X for heavy roleplaying.

Just a note on this point--the more roleplay-heavy your campaign, the less the game system matters. For example, the Galen Saga never had dice rolling at all (despite having a fair amount of combat), and Evening with the Fraternity had almost none, so it didn't much matter what the nominal "game system" was.

[alhoon]

Ironnically with the position combat system, the actions points and the out-of-combat resolution of 4e seem harder to put to a PC game than 3rd edition. I think 4e will pose a greater challenge than the precedent edition to be portray in video game.

I disagree here. 4E seems much more fitting for an algorithm and a computer game. You see, you press the hotkey for the encounter power or daily power. Probably, there will be another button for spending action points, allowing you to attack/cast spell faster so that you have time to press another button.

Think of the combat system in NWN2, you stack up your moves so by spending an action point, you can easily move faster through your choices.

[Jester of the FoS]

Think of the combat system in NWN2, you stack up your moves so by spending an action point, you can easily move faster through your choices.

NWN2 had problems with D&D combat. They couldn't get the animations to work fast enough to cope with 3+ attacks per round AND Attacks of Opportunity AND cleave.
While the fewer attacks in 4e make it easier, things like aiming burst/blasts would slow down a real time game and action points would take so long to pick and activate it'd be easier to wait the 6 seconds until your next turn.

While a turn-based grided combat game might work, it'd feel slow and likely lose alot of action fans.

[tec-goblin]

While the fewer attacks in 4e make it easier, things like aiming burst/blasts would slow down a real time game

I don't see why. They just have to made their areas slightly larger. Depending on the type of game (mmorpg or single player), there will be friendly fire or not.
For a multi-player they can just keep the powers that say "each enemy in burst" instead of "each creature in burst". After all, for a MMORPG you don't need (and you cannot graphically implement) a gazillion powers per level.

Now, to the point: I like 4e. It just cannot still cover all my gaming needs like 3e could (I miss d20 modern a lot).
But for playing D&D, I have the best flowing campaign I've ever played. Even though we play through maptool (I am in France and the players are in Greece), the players are passionate, and participate in every possible way. The battle is very interesting, with a lot of meaningful options. The teamwork is beautiful. The liberty you can take with power flavours etc is liberating. The whole "5 (4 for us at this moment) magic item/level" is not that strict. I give the correct level of items, but a bit less often, and they have no huge problems (as they would have in 3e). And for some items, I don't even present them as magic ("this is a fine blade crafted by a Castillian artisan").
And, despite what some might think, it feels less like a card game. I don't have to see with what I could counter the players' dimension door. I don't have to have every high level NPC covered with mind blank because of all too-prevalent divination spells.
But what helps me more, is the time I gain. If creating an well-fleshed out NPC takes me only 15' (with background, allegiances and all) and an encounter takes me less than 10', I can use the rest of my preparation time to prepare game wikis, prepare initiative rolls, and play solos with players (asking around in the town for something that interests only one, pursuing hidden agendas, fighting off nightmares etc).

There are some problems. Yes, it is practically impossible to drop a PC in the first round, making them sometimes slightly less cautious. But you can drop them in the following. They cannot just escape with instant teleportation.
But in the end, what's more important is that the players like it, and give all their energy to the game. Our bard is not scared of dying in the first fireball, and does not have a +100 modifier that could allow her to do ridiculous things without even roleplaying a bit. Our ranger of Sune (yes, now that is something possible) does not fear her cheetah will die in that same fireball, and actively uses her companion all the time. Our halfling warlock with the parrot familiar has the skills to draw maps, calculate the position of stars and scare taller guys in a very funny way. Even our newest member plays a wild sorcerer of Tzeentch, with tons of appropriate powers, something he couldn't play (that well) in any previous edition (and also is in the second step in the path of corruption, but anyway ).

[alhoon]

Yes, but I guess that cheetah does the same damage as the ranger with at will attacks, right? And it would the same damage with per encounter powers as if it was a crocodile or a sharp-tooth armadilo... and also has the same speed.

Also there are two ways to approach the fly problem or the divinations problem:
1. Put some effort and thinking on it, or predict they will be used and craft the adventure accordingly.
2. Don't think at all. Just remove them.

They went with solution 2. While easier it removes things from play. The simple solution isn't always the best solution.
I like the existance of divination spells. My players also like the existance of such spells not just because the solve problem but because they are a good reward for advancing levels. Like detect lies. Sure, it makes intrigue adventures much more difficult to make... but also gives a feeling of accomplishment to the cleric of the party.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

One thing I like about 4th Ed is wild mages. They took the fun out of them in 3rd/3.5 and now with 4th, whilst they lack the pure what-the-hell-oh-my-god-you-burnt-down-another-inn-ery of 2nd Ed wild mages, they have the fun of random things happening.

[alhoon]

Wild mages are back?! I bet they're in the arcane power book I cannot buy because the PDFs have been canceled...

Whoever is responsible for the PDF stop: Curse you to the fiery pits of Baator until your flesh turns as loose on your bones as a 100 centuries old lemure that is a veteran of 1000 battles with Tanari!


On wild mages: I don't even think they were ever seriously incorporated in 3rd edition. I remember seeing something somewhere (perhaps FR) but they were... un-wildy. No more 6th level spells from a 5th level caster or colored butterflies instead of effects.

How do they feel in 4E since I cannot buy the book and see them (curse you to spiked embrace of a dozen starving hamatula!) ? Any examples?

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

Wild mages are a form of sorcerer and are in the PHB2. Their spells do extra things when you roll even numbers on your dice rolls and they get a random resistance every extended rest.

The other main sorcerer type is dragon blooded.

[ewancummins]

I loved the old Tome of Magic wild mages! Nahal's Reckless Dweomer, baby! Never actually played a wild mage myself, but I always enjoyed having one in the group. They made things interesting.

I could actually see a wild mage in Ravenloft, as a native of Vechor. It's a weird enough place for that. I cannot remember whether the darklord of that domain was originally a wild mage.

[Jester of the FoS]

And the latest news, as of now, the May calendar for Dragon magazines as "Domains of Dread" listed, so we either get:
a) an article on Ravenloft in 4e
b) another new domain
c) an update of an old domain.

Likely b) but the others might be interesting...

[Big Bad Jack]

Personally, for me, after the initial improvements and impressions (I can be a dwarven wizard! Whee! I can be a wizard with a sword! WHee! Feats are COOL, now all fighters who swing a sword don't swing it the same way!) wore off....

If I want detailed rules, I'll break out Deadlands. Combat there is interesting, and fighter vs. caster? Far more balanced, and both are still useful at high "level" -- in fact I hate class-based systems altogether. By the end of the first couple years, I was playing 3.X mainly due to thats what the Portal played, and that's what Ravenloft was running on these days. I only grew less satisified and more put off on it as time went by, and when I branched out into new horizons (NWoD came out, Savage Worlds and Mutants & Masterminds...) ... D&D fell further and further to the wayside -- and I never liked d20 Modern, not the tiniest bit.

Then 4th came out. My expectations were titanically low.

...and then, it redeemed the franchise. COmbat was fun, the classes were all balanced, a huge steaming pile of crap that was pointless, obnoxious, unnecessary rules was gone, and most importantly after the empty, hollow, blank-slate of 3.X... D&D had flavor and history again. Even the elements I wanted to desperately despise (Dragonborn, Eladrin..) managed to woo me over to their side.. hell, now I love Dragobos.. they're just so much like Trolls from Changeling: the Dreaming, I guess.

I played a character in 3.5, across editions, until he became reskinned in 4th. Same level, much more competence. And I know some people disagree, but the designers finally shot a sacred cow and realized that being a one-hit die wonder with a chintzy weapon and shoddy sword... its not fun to anyone except, as I called them in days I DMed an NWN server (if you wanted to see 3.X's flaws laid bare, play NWN on a "low magic" server. Ye gods, did it become blatant fast) "masochists".. and msot of those were the hack-and-slashers wanting a "gaming challenge".. or RP elitisits that think powergaming and wanting a powerful character and being a top-notch roleplayer are mutually exclusive. Playing my Dragobo Warlord (at first level!), I dived off a boat in a river, landed running, and took an axe to a bandit leader while spewing my poisonous breath. Was it powerful? Yes and no.. but, it illsutrated something.. not even a barbarian could lucidly pull off such a stunt at 1st level in 3.X... you'd be crazy to try. Why should you suffer for your art through boring, drab, miserable leels to actually be able to make something flashy? Savage WOrlds figured this out, and dragged that cow out and made hamburgers. Now D&D did too, and its better for it.

And unlike 3.X, class balance is well.. better balanced. I'm sorry, but clerics and wizards were just so absurdly overpowered they had to get nerfed. As for as Alhoon said, planning ahead for things.. no DM is perfect, and sometimes, too much planning ahead and thwarting PCs abuse of tools the game gives them just feels like an arse-pull, a cheap-shot, and petty -- it swings both ways on that. Just removing the temptation upfront makes for a much better balance.. and no more "Oh yay, another featureless Sorceror level..." syndrome either.

And I shed a tear when I read over dwarves, heard their strong, religious culture.. I never liked 2nd Edition mechanically.. but as so many have said... 4th feels, to me, liek D&D should feel.

..that and its a snap to DM, which since I usually end up doing so.. is a plus. Whole, coherent adventure in under an hour. Aces.

Jack is strongly, unapologetically pro-4th.

[alhoon]

Playing my Dragobo Warlord (at first level!), I dived off a boat in a river, landed running, and took an axe to a bandit leader while spewing my poisonous breath.

One of my problems with 4E is that at 1st level you can't chop down that level 2 elite bandit leader with one strike... and you also can't do it at level 12.

Spellcasters mostly zap damage these days.
OK, I understand that out-of-combat spells could be done as rituals, but even simple rituals have costs and take time. At 5th level 35gp cost for alchemical reagents are too much for the equivalent of create food. And what about skill challenge encounters?
I will add utility powers for spellcasters much like the ranger's and rogue's powers for spellcasters that just help others like allowing a reroll on a skill etc.
And since such utility powers aren't as useful as other utility powers... I'll allow them through feats.

[Jester of the FoS]

Spellcasters mostly zap damage these days.
OK, I understand that out-of-combat spells could be done as rituals, but even simple rituals have costs and take time.

This always irks me, how even something like glitterdust does damage now. Every attack HAS to hurt, you cannot make a character that simple works with other characters or assists or hinders the enemy. They have to hinder AND hurt.

At 5th level 35gp cost for alchemical reagents are too much for the equivalent of create food. And what about skill challenge encounters?
I will add utility powers for spellcasters much like the ranger's and rogue's powers for spellcasters that just help others like allowing a reroll on a skill etc.
And since such utility powers aren't as useful as other utility powers... I'll allow them through feats.

I've found the cost really pushes people away from rituals, especially since you get exactly enough cash for a magic item. If you buy rituals and cast them you're sacrificing a magic item.