Fun Stuff > CLIKC
D&D 4th Edition
ackblom12:
I've been reading them the last couple days. Outside of possible fluff, my 3rd ed books will never be touched again.
Alex C:
My 4th Edition Thoughts:
I like just about everything about the actual mechanics and gameplay. I really dig the warlord concept-- It's nice to play a cunning support minded combatant without necessarily having to be a zealous cleric/paladin or lugging around something as lame as a magical mandolin.
My few complaints are thematic, and I feel like it'd be a bit out of line to complain too much on that end before they've had a chance to release much more product.
As for the excluded base classes, I don't really miss them much, especially since they'll probably be around soon again anyway. When it comes to bards, I'll concede that the idea of magical music makes sense, but always thought they stretched the concept pretty far when they make them into a base class. I readily admit to personal bias on this one, but I always thought it would have done better as a PrC even back in 3rd. Barbarians aren't really gone, imo. I always thought it was a bad idea to seperate the idea of a savage warrior from the "fighter" umbrella to begin with. As it is now in 4th edition, you can easily create a "Fighter" who doesn't start off knowing how to properly wear heavy plate, starts with Athletics, Endurance and Intimidation skills plus uses such charming powers as Boundless Endurance and Brute Strike in battle. Sounds like a barbarian to me-- toss in a loincloth, a couple grunts and a cleave and people'll be calling you Conan in no time. I have much the same thoughts on sorcerors-- they've always used the same spells as Wizards, and thematically one improvises while the other prepares. It really wouldn't be that bloody hard to roll up a wizard, say he has some inborn talents and call 'im a sorceror. I'll admit to being a tiny bit perturbed by the exclusion of druids though. I mean, I guess you could just generic things up and play a "druid" as a nature themed cleric and say spells like "Astral Defenders" actually summons a couple of dire bears or whatever, but I suspect that kind of monkeying around with names and descriptions would get a bit tiresome after a while. Same story for evil clerics/paladins. I'm just hung up on druids in particular because I always enjoyed turning into a bear and fucking people up.
KvP:
I don't think they're going to open up much on the evil stuff, at least not for awhile, based on what I've read. A lot of people are bawwwing about the books just out and telling readers that they're supposed to play good characters, and it is pretty hilarious, but I guess they're being honest at least.
Response as far as mechanics and such seems to be positive so far, at least from the people whose opinions generally matter.
ackblom12:
I don't know, I've always been annoyed by the fact that Barbarian was a class and not a Template.
Personally I love the idea of the ards though. Of course I'm a real sucker for Norse mythology and tales of Nordic Skalds are particularly fascinating to me, but considering how much work the Bard class needed to make it viable in this game setting, I'm glad they're taking their time with it.
bryanthelion:
I was supposed to play 4.0 today, but it just HAD to be Bradley's (my brother's) birthday.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version