Dungeons and Dragons

SpyreX · Post Post #14 (isolation #0) » Sat May 05, 2012 4:58 pm

Do you enjoy grid-based tactical combat? As in very, very much devoted to the grid?

If yes 4e can be a lot of fun (and as a DM I enjoy it a billion times more than other editions). If no, abort now.

SpyreX · Post Post #21 (isolation #1) » Mon May 07, 2012 2:39 am

I wouldn't quite say this. A lot of people complain because 4e is much more of a tactical miniatures game than 3.5. But I don't think it makes the GAMES grid-focused. It means that there are lots of rules where there should be lots of rules (combat) and lots of DM freedom where there should be (out of combat). I've had entire 4e sessions without combat.

Some people will whinge that 4e is 'rollplaying, not roleplaying' but all that means is that it's up to the DM to invent the non-combat rules, which imo is how it should be.

That's why I said combat - the roleplaying part you can make work well (and will be the memorable bit) in almost any system. I've just had the most fun combat wise in 4E of the editions of D&D. Hell I played the crap out of that facebook app and I'd still give my right eye for a turn based SRPG based on the 4R mechanics.

I think the idea of skill challenges was a solid one but the inception didn't pan out the way they wanted but its a step. I dont ever want a full fledged non-combat system BUT having some metrics is a decent idea.

SpyreX · Post Post #80 (isolation #2) » Thu May 24, 2012 1:53 pm

D&D Next is really D&D 3rd with some tweaks.

Siiighhh

SpyreX · Post Post #82 (isolation #3) » Thu May 24, 2012 2:07 pm

The system isn't too complicated. Its the erroneous bits. That just comes with time.

SpyreX · Post Post #94 (isolation #4) » Fri May 25, 2012 6:54 am

I'm reading through the D&D Next playtest. It looks like a combination of Essentials and Basic D&D, but without the power system.

I guess I'm not as familiar with Essentials because I really got a 3.x vibe from it. You know enough to detail it out a bit better than I can?

Looks like we're back to wonkus power curves. The fighter being a single page is back to the boring melee without the "benefit" of full attacks.

SpyreX · Post Post #99 (isolation #5) » Fri May 25, 2012 8:28 am

That sounds like you've got a solid DM and are headed to a lot of fun man. I'm glad!

SpyreX · Post Post #101 (isolation #6) » Fri May 25, 2012 8:36 am

I had a DM do that once too. Its definitely pretty engrossing.

I've always been more of a maps and general here be dragons and cities and really let the players feed it.

SpyreX · Post Post #113 (isolation #7) » Fri May 25, 2012 4:52 pm

I'd also say that it is greatly simplified over 3.X, with the lack of class-based attack bonuses and the inclusion of training bonuses for weapons and magical attacks.

Definitely. It was more the vibe of feats with the disparity between what it looks like they can "do" as it goes on.

Playtest only goes up to 3rd level. Fighters didn't normally get multiple attacks until 6th level, whether we're talking about AD&D or 3.X. What we know for certain is that Fighters get damage scaling for weapon attacks and that spellcasters are seriously inconvenienced by taking damage-- not to the extent of AD&D, but certainly more so than in 3.X.

I guess there is a line that says "high level fighters can attack and do something else". The inclusion of the fighter extra attack twice per day made me think we wont see an active full attack onslaught.