Monday, July 20, 2009

D&D 4e Revisited

Well, I have finally played Fourth Edition D&D again. This was my second time. @tas33 played this time as well. Here is a renewed impression.

I think I know why many old schoolers are against 4e: it is fun.

Pretend you are playing 1st or 2nd edition D&D, and you roll up a 1st level Magic-User (yes, that is what Wizards were called BitD). Your party gets in its first fight. For you, it goes something like this:

DM: "Darius, it is your attack."

DW: "I cast magic missile!"

DM: "The physically challenged kobold goes after Darius. He is armed with a plastic spoon. Darius, what do you do?"

DW: "I am out of spells, have 2 hit points, and a 10 armor class... I run screaming."

See, in older versions of D&D, many classes had to gain levels before they were any use what-so-ever. Hell, in Basic D&D Clerics did not even get spells until 2nd level. Now, if you were a fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian, or thief (rogue for those of you in your twenties), you had hit points and armor, and your weapon can be used every turn.

In 4e, you still need to know your role, and your limitations, but each class has enough power at 1st level to contribute throughout the encounter. The Wizard will not deal nor absorb damage like the fighter, but you have at-will spells that let you attack each round.

The classes and powers also let you pick a role that suits your desires and skills. Here is something you should know about me. I roll 4s, always. Every time. You will never hear "does a 4 hit it?" more times than in a game session with me. However, there are classes where my tactical sense does not help me deal damage, but helps my allies. I am seriously considering playing a warlord soon. That will be my new class of choice, I believe.

So, if you are against 4e, you really should look into it. I have been playing since Basic/Expert, and have never had as much fun playing since 1st edition as I have had in 4e. If you like 3/3.5e - 4e is is much better. I understand you have $300 in 3e and 3.5e books and are reticent to give them up, but you just might want to. I'm just sayin'.

5 comments:

Carl (ILHM) said...

AD&D > all

Darius Whiteplume said...

@Carl - I understand.

They have never made better books than the 1st edition AD&D. They had tons of cool stuff and much better art.

The Almost-Geek Girl said...

My husband and I recently started a 4.0 campaign. It was was more fun for me because I could play a caster and not have to hide like a bitch every encounter, and I think the new classes/races made for some silly fun-time rp'ing.

This was our conversation:

Husband: "So that was good, right?"

Me: "Yes...but I think the writers were playing Warcraft when they made the rules."

Everyone: "Yeah."

Darius Whiteplume said...

D&D spawned WoW, so I guess it can go the other way.

When we played 3e, @tas33 played a druid and was pissed she always had to burn spells for healing. She was a bad ass Druid tank playing medic.

"Should I rain hellfire down on the opposing forces? No, wait. Thorgar got a boo-boo." :-)

lokipan said...

Great post. this echoes my thoughts on the "old school D&D vs 4e" idiocy that is so en vogue lately. Fun is fun.

Post a Comment