Fun Stuff > ENJOY
4th edition D&D=Teh sckuk OR awesomesauce?
Nodaisho:
So 4th has gotten rid of the linear fighter, quadratic wizard problem? The main complaint I have heard is the powers that everyone has that you can use once a round, once a minute, or a certain amount of times a day, those existed in 3.x, but they weren't what everyone used. Martial adepts in the Book of 9 swords were getting closer to that, able to use maneuvers an infinite amount of times a day, but needing to refocus to get them back, and only able to ready any given one once. I think Bo9S really helped the issue with fighters being stuck doing 2d6+15 damage constantly, while the mages played rocket launcher tag and who-can-bone-reality-harder. As it was, if you want to do melee damage worth a damn, you have to be a charger, when you get (1d8+20)3 damage if you know what you are doing at all, and x6 if you really try.
I would need to look at the books closer to decide whether I liked it or not, but the point is currently moot, as I am broke.
I honestly personally like d20 modern better, anyhow. Though you do need some houserules in order to get balance back in weapons, the guy that they had statting up guns was highly biased, he made it so that you are better off shooting skeet with a moose gun than birdshot.
Dimmukane:
I've been playing it, and it's a blast, to be honest. I find myself strategizing a lot more for fights (as well as the other party members), and my DM is good enough to make me think the storytelling part has improved (it hasn't really been affected at all, really, but the way combat has changed affects the pacing of the story, which is what has improved).
Alex C:
The big thing to get your mind around Nodaisho is that 4th doesn't even pretend to be playable without a grid and some minis now. Many, many character abilities deal directly with shifting pieces around the map. Also, Wizards can't really rape reality anymore so much as they're simply really good at utility and can really negatively affect the performance of large groups of enemies. Wizards are actually kind of subpar when it comes to dealing single target damage now, although I feel bad for any goblin horde that pisses off my ice wizard.
Fighters are pretty cool now; a lot of their abilities don't seem so hot at first glance, but a lot of their abilities dovetail together really nicely. Once they get into melee range they essentially become living choke points who punish enemies for doing anything but defending themselves from the fighter.
Oskik:
The thing that I like the least is the lack of druids and barbarians. also, while 3.5 had hundreds of different spells, 4th leaves spellcasters a bit less variable.
Alex C:
Personally, I always felt that seperating barbarians from the generic fighter umbrella in the first place was really dumb and a big part of why Fighters were so subpar in 3.x to begin with. I have nothing against the idea of a barbaric warrior, I just didn't understand why the hell they couldn't have made barbarian abilities into combat feats. That way you wouldn't have had to multi-class so damn much to turn into a halfway decent melee character (and even then you'd STILL get rolled by a determined spellcaster).
As it stands now, the 4th edition Fighter hits me as more than capable of covering the barbarian archetype, but I'm sure people will disagree with me, even if a standard fighter can easily start out favoring a 2 handed axe, chainmail and hide armor proficiencies (but no plate) and powers called Cleave, Reaping Blows, Brute Strike, Spinning Sweep and Boundless Endurance.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version