4E Dungeons & Dragons - Verdict?

[Gamerprinter]

There are more differences in style in playing D&D.

Though this doesn't describe me, you have to allow that D&D can be played as a combat simulationist game, especially if you rely on mechanics more than fluff. Nothing wrong with that, but that means if a given mechanic has been removed from the game moving from one edition to another, how does the simulationist DM deal with what they were already comfortable using. This is hypothetical, as I am sure Midgardsormr injects plenty of RP in his games.

What I am saying, is D&D doesn't have to be Roleplaying at all. So to argue just roleplay it in, might apply to a given DMs style of play but might not be the best solution for everyone.

Regarding the fact the skills have been pulled from 4e. 3.5e has many faults and broken mechanics. The question is for me, was the skill mechanic broken? What reasonable reason did WotC choose to remove skills from play. Its their product and if they just wanted to create a different game, so they removed, that's fine. However, my hope was that 4e was intended to fix a broken 3.5e.
Skills weren't broken, so removing that mechanic offers no benefit to those who were already using it.

To argue, make up a house rule or roleplay out, while a viable solution, might not be the only solution or the best one for a given DM. Besides, if you have to start "house ruling" a new game - to those concerned gamers, wouldn't that indicate that the new is game is just as broken?

Besides, unless you completely understand the new edition, having to create a house rule right off the bat, may make the overall game unbalanced. I'd rather play an entire campaign to understand the continuity of the entire ruleset. Once I understand fairly well, house rules can start to enter play in a responsible manner, not to destroy the balance in the game.

I say, don't fix it, if its not broken - of course D&D is not my IP, and I have no control on what the publisher wants to do with their game.

I know DMs that roleplay everything, with hardly a die being cast at all. It works for those DMs, but I personally don't like. I don't want a DM to dictate how a game is played with no rules to refer in understanding their game method.

That's my dimes worth.

GP

[deanatglobe]

Tabletop RPG's are in some way or fashion an exercise in creativity. Because of this one will rarely find two groups that play exactly the same way. I have Gm'd for groups using the same system, where half the players were the same and had fairly different interpretations of the rules and play styles.

I love that it is a pasttime where there are people embracing 4e and adopting wholeheartedly and others who never understood why people moved on to 2e. I think that is fun.

[Pilias]

There are more differences in style in playing D&D.

Though this doesn't describe me, you have to allow that D&D can be played as a combat simulationist game, especially if you rely on mechanics more than fluff. Nothing wrong with that, but that means if a given mechanic has been removed from the game moving from one edition to another, how does the simulationist DM deal with what they were already comfortable using. This is hypothetical, as I am sure Midgardsormr injects plenty of RP in his games.

What I am saying, is D&D doesn't have to be Roleplaying at all. So to argue just roleplay it in, might apply to a given DMs style of play but might not be the best solution for everyone.

Regarding the fact the skills have been pulled from 4e. 3.5e has many faults and broken mechanics. The question is for me, was the skill mechanic broken? What reasonable reason did WotC choose to remove skills from play. Its their product and if they just wanted to create a different game, so they removed, that's fine. However, my hope was that 4e was intended to fix a broken 3.5e.
Skills weren't broken, so removing that mechanic offers no benefit to those who were already using it.

To argue, make up a house rule or roleplay out, while a viable solution, might not be the only solution or the best one for a given DM. Besides, if you have to start "house ruling" a new game - to those concerned gamers, wouldn't that indicate that the new is game is just as broken?

Besides, unless you completely understand the new edition, having to create a house rule right off the bat, may make the overall game unbalanced. I'd rather play an entire campaign to understand the continuity of the entire ruleset. Once I understand fairly well, house rules can start to enter play in a responsible manner, not to destroy the balance in the game.

I say, don't fix it, if its not broken - of course D&D is not my IP, and I have no control on what the publisher wants to do with their game.

I know DMs that roleplay everything, with hardly a die being cast at all. It works for those DMs, but I personally don't like. I don't want a DM to dictate how a game is played with no rules to refer in understanding their game method.

That's my dimes worth.

GP

I have to strongly disagree with your statement that the skill system was not broken, it was so unbalanced in later levels that you basically had to set up seperate DCs for skill specialists and another for everyone else, and after about level 5 you either do the same thing with poisons/traps/diseases ect or you just don't use them at all because the DCs provided for all of these things just didn't work as real obsticles to a Rogue after that point. It wasn't unreasonable to expect a level 12 Rogue to be able to run up a flat wall (DC30) as just one example of how the system didn't work well.

[Gamerprinter]

No one plays or rogues or other skill-based classes in my group ever.

GP

[msa]

No one plays or rogues or other skill-based classes in my group ever.

That's all I EVER play! LOL!

PS. I meant to add... GP. I wouldn't switch if I had invested that much either. Hell, I haven't switched, and I think I own more books than anyone in my 7 person group (which I play in... not the DM). And I only own 7: the three core books + the 4 complete XXX books.

[Pilias]

That's all I EVER play! LOL!

PS. I meant to add... GP. I wouldn't switch if I had invested that much either. Hell, I haven't switched, and I think I own more books than anyone in my 7 person group (which I play in... not the DM). And I only own 7: the three core books + the 4 complete XXX books.

there were more than 4 complete books, they went back and did another set (IE complete Arcane and then later complete mage), ect ect.

[Pilias]

No one plays or rogues or other skill-based classes in my group ever.

GP

Thats probably why you didn't notice how broken the system is then.

I personally play a Rogue as my main class when I PC, which isn't often these days, so I noticed it right off the bat. It was almost a joke to put traps in the game after about level 7 and you don't bother with hidden doors either with Elves in the party so it really takes away from some of the tricks you can do as a DM, from a strictly rules based perspective, forcing DMs of 3.5 to adapt the system to overcome these challenges in various ways. Much like in 4th ed you need fluff (often I borrow fluff from 3rd ed books) to fill out the areas that were glossed over (a great example is the complete lack of a decent list of adventuring equipment (partially fixed with the Draconomicon))

[msa]

I have to strongly disagree with your statement that the skill system was not broken, it was so unbalanced in later levels that you basically had to set up seperate DCs for skill specialists and another for everyone else, and after about level 5 you either do the same thing with poisons/traps/diseases ect or you just don't use them at all because the DCs provided for all of these things just didn't work as real obsticles to a Rogue after that point. It wasn't unreasonable to expect a level 12 Rogue to be able to run up a flat wall (DC30) as just one example of how the system didn't work well.

Two people have mentioned this, and I'll make a third. I agree with the sentiment "it was nice to have a wide range of skills and rules, as well as flexibility in how you train skills, in 3.5"... its one of the reasons I prefer 3.5. But it is, unfortunately, a tragically broken system (just one that I like).

A search for "diplomancer" will show you just how broken the system could be--some super-munchkin made a 6th level character with a +94 to diplomacy. Even without using a host of supplemental rules diplomacy was particularly abusable, and my new rogue 2/fighter 1 has a +20 diplomacy (7 ranks +5 feats (skill focus, negotiator) +6 sync bonuses (bluff, sense motive, knowledge: nobility) +2 charisma).

Like everyone said, it is very hard to set DCs because they are either easy for a specialist or impossible for everyone else. This is especially problematic when there is some sort of game mechanic or attack tied up in a skill (like diplomacy). I probably only like 3.5 better because in my group we are happy to discard rules in favor of story so these things don't get out of hand, but that's only an option for mature groups.

Overall, I'd say 4e is much more balanced, and does a much better job keeping the entire party relevant in non-combat encounters. There are great ideas on teh internets for 'secondary skills' for players to fill in the story-based gaps that 4e does leave (which are huge).

[Pilias]

Two people have mentioned this, and I'll make a third. I agree with the sentiment "it was nice to have a wide range of skills and rules, as well as flexibility in how you train skills, in 3.5"... its one of the reasons I prefer 3.5. But it is, unfortunately, a tragically broken system (just one that I like).

A search for "diplomancer" will show you just how broken the system could be--some super-munchkin made a 6th level character with a +94 to diplomacy. Even without using a host of supplemental rules diplomacy was particularly abusable, and my new rogue 2/fighter 1 has a +20 diplomacy (7 ranks +5 feats (skill focus, negotiator) +6 sync bonuses (bluff, sense motive, knowledge: nobility) +2 charisma).

Like everyone said, it is very hard to set DCs because they are either easy for a specialist or impossible for everyone else. This is especially problematic when there is some sort of game mechanic or attack tied up in a skill (like diplomacy). I probably only like 3.5 better because in my group we are happy to discard rules in favor of story so these things don't get out of hand, but that's only an option for mature groups.

Overall, I'd say 4e is much more balanced, and does a much better job keeping the entire party relevant in non-combat encounters. There are great ideas on teh internets for 'secondary skills' for players to fill in the story-based gaps that 4e does leave (which are huge).

Not just on the internet, there are backgrounds provided in Dragon Magazine, the FRPHB and the PHB2 which provide a way to give your characters backgrounds. It even advises you to give circumstance bonus' when those backgrounds come into play meaning that even an inexperienced 4th ed DM will have an idea of how to incorporate backgrounds into the game.

Like all of D&D though the non-combat side of the game is lacking compared to some other systems, but that has it's roots in the origins of the system and would only be relevant in a discussion of say White Wolf's system vs WotC's system, not in a discussion comparing 3rd to 4th ed.