PDA

View Full Version : I like 4th Edition.



AstralFire
2008-06-02, 03:36 PM
When all is said and done, I feel it has one important merit: The game engine is vastly superior to 3.X's, in my opinion, for heroic fantasy. You can squabble about the actual spells and classes and races provided to us, but the biggest thing I take from a rulebook is the engine on which my game runs. Most of my favorite 3E books were either fluff or ruleset additions, not premanufactured content. I have been a heavy homebrewer since a month after I first learned how to play 3.0, and 4ed feels like it is much easier to both run quickly, and create for.

The core classes and races could have been Psychic Warrior, Barbarian, Druid, Beguiler, Spell-Thief, Knight with Half-Orc, Blue, Star Elf, Vulcans and RoboGoats and I wouldn't care as long as they were mechanically sound and balanced - I would never use any of those, but I could use them as templates to build the classes and races I would play.

I apologize if anyone feels this thread is redundant, but the board seems covered in complaints about the new edition, and they do not reflect me or my opinion.

P.S. - I can understand if you don't care for fourth's rules and spirit, but if you are tempted to make any veiled accusations about "roll-players" or somesuch, go away please.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 04:04 PM
I like 4e as well. It's a fun, streamlined, easy to learn system.

AstralFire
2008-06-02, 04:13 PM
I am in the process of trying to learn as much as possible so I can run a quick game and get some hands-on XP. Then I have to work on making a 4E druid so we can convert. :D Everything else should be a quick conversion, with one to two custom powers apiece.

Sir_Elderberry
2008-06-02, 04:42 PM
Now I'm upset that 4e doesn't permit RoboGoat Beguilers.

THESE ARE NOT THE MECHANICAL GOATS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, HUMAN.

Frosty
2008-06-02, 04:43 PM
Speaking of Beguilers, are they mechanically possible in 4e at all? Beguiler is one of my favorite classes to play in 3.5, and if they make the sneaky caster impossible, I will be :smallfurious:

Saibrock
2008-06-02, 04:48 PM
As an avid gamer and an ambitious customizer, I love 4E. The mechanics are sound, stable, and inherently controllable. As far as the "spirit of the game" or the "design philosophy" goes, I call this a step in the right direction from 3E. Don't get me wrong, I liked 3E, and still do, but 4E is MORE what I want in a game. The overall design of the system is more robust, more fun-oriented rather than simulation-oriented, and I feel like my characters (and even my NPCs and monsters) are more free to be the superheroes I want them to be.

I may or may not ever play in a 3E game again, but I guarantee that I will never run a 3E game again. It's 4E for me from here on out.

That's my 2cp.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 04:49 PM
Speaking of Beguilers, are they mechanically possible in 4e at all? Beguiler is one of my favorite classes to play in 3.5, and if they make the sneaky caster impossible, I will be :smallfurious:

They can't be done right now.

See, Word of God has confirmed that they decided NOT to include much in the way of illusions in the first PHB, because it was too easy to bork them, and they needed more time to test and design. But they'll probably return for the PHB II.

tyckspoon
2008-06-02, 04:49 PM
Speaking of Beguilers, are they mechanically possible in 4e at all? Beguiler is one of my favorite classes to play in 3.5, and if they make the sneaky caster impossible, I will be :smallfurious:

Do you mean as in 'not currently existing' or 'not possible within the rules'? No Beguiler exists pre-built in the PHB- there's a distinct shortage of charming and illusion type powers. But there's definitely room for them in the rules; Shadow and/or Psionics-sourced controllers in future supplements will probably have similar flavor, and may borrow the name as well.

Saibrock
2008-06-02, 04:50 PM
Speaking of Beguilers, are they mechanically possible in 4e at all? Beguiler is one of my favorite classes to play in 3.5, and if they make the sneaky caster impossible, I will be :smallfurious:
Not really, no. At least, not yet. However, it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with custom Wizard spells to simulate a Beguiler-esque character. I wouldn't hold my breath for an official Beguiler class anytime soon, though.

Indon
2008-06-02, 04:51 PM
Speaking of Beguilers, are they mechanically possible in 4e at all? Beguiler is one of my favorite classes to play in 3.5, and if they make the sneaky caster impossible, I will be :smallfurious:

Just mix Wizard and Warlock powers.

For instance, one of your at-wills (reflavor as necessary):

Stealthy Blast: Level 1 At-Will ability
You fire a blast of foggy magic at your target.
To-hit: Int+2 vs AC
Hit: 1d6+Int damage and Target suffers concealment versus yourself and an ally of your choice until your next turn.
Miss: Target suffers concealment versus you.

Bam, one-third of the beguiler's At-will arsenal. Took about 30 seconds.

Edit: I suppose I should say my opinion rather than just hack up some homebrew.

I'm intrigued by the system, and intend on using it for at least one (specific) campaign at this time. Homebrewing in it also stands to be pretty fun, and relatively easy so long as I stay within the system's parameters.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-02, 04:53 PM
Speaking of Beguilers, are they mechanically possible in 4e at all? Beguiler is one of my favorite classes to play in 3.5, and if they make the sneaky caster impossible, I will be :smallfurious:

Well, actually, they might work well.

While illsionary magic is not yet developed much (there are a few illusion spells here and there and ritual has that illusionary object spell) in 4th; the other beguiler spells are definately possible.

Giving a class Stealth and Thievery skill as base skill choices as well as Arcana works for skills.

What role is a Beguiler though?

Frosty
2008-06-02, 04:54 PM
I mean, here's the thing. See, I see (and many others as well) the Beguiler as a very good example of a good, balanced caster class (not perfectly balanced, but good enough) that is above the Warlock in usefulness but below the Wizard and Druid in terms of b0rkeness. You'd figure that a class that is already balanced would have made it to the next edition or at least have been made possible with the current powers available.

That said, do you believe that the 4e system could support a balanced Beguiler? Under the current 4e rules as has been released, can we homebrew up some powers that are balanced, keep in spirit with the 3.5 Beguiler, and play with style (specifically, 4e style)?

Indon
2008-06-02, 04:54 PM
What role is a Beguiler though?

Controller, with minor Leader/Striker options.

Frosty
2008-06-02, 04:57 PM
What role is a Beguiler though?

In 3.5? Rogue without Sneak Attack, add in full casting from Illusions and Enchantments. Decent battlefield controller thanks to Solid Fog, Grease, etc. Can be a striker with non-lethal damage, although isn't very good at it. Very good at misleading others into missing or outright doing something else. Also dabbles in buffing and is decent at de-buffing.

Saibrock
2008-06-02, 05:00 PM
Just mix Wizard and Warlock powers.

For instance, one of your at-wills (reflavor as necessary):

Stealthy Blast: Level 1 At-Will ability
You fire a blast of foggy magic at your target.
To-hit: Int+2 vs AC
Hit: 1d6+Int damage and Target suffers concealment versus yourself and an ally of your choice until your next turn.
Miss: Target suffers concealment versus you.

Bam, one-third of the beguiler's At-will arsenal. Took about 30 seconds.

Edit: I suppose I should say my opinion rather than just hack up some homebrew.

I'm intrigued by the system, and intend on using it for at least one (specific) campaign at this time. Homebrewing in it also stands to be pretty fun, and relatively easy so long as I stay within the system's parameters.
Just to clean up your formatting, let me take a shot at it:

Beguiling Blast; Beguiler Attack 1
Encounter • Arcane, Implement, Illusion
Standard Action; Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs Will
Hit: 1d6 + charisma modifier psychic damage, and you become invisible until the end of your next turn.
Miss: You gain concealment against the target until the end of your next turn.

As a note: Characters get 2 at-will powers at 1st level, not 3 (unless you're human). Also, I haven't done any play-testing, so I don't have an expert opinion on if this power should be encounter or at-will, but I lean toward encounter for things like invisibility.

PS: This thread is totally hijacked.

kamikasei
2008-06-02, 05:00 PM
That said, do you believe that the 4e system could support a balanced Beguiler? Under the current 4e rules as has been released, can we homebrew up some powers that are balanced, keep in spirit with the 3.5 Beguiler, and play with style (specifically, 4e style)?

They seem to be holding off on introducing proper illusions and enchantments, so it's very hard to say. It may be possible to put together something like a Beguiler once we have illusionists and psions, but really, who knows?

Indon
2008-06-02, 05:08 PM
Beguiling Blast; Beguiler Attack 1
Encounter • Arcane, Implement, Illusion
Standard Action; Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs Will
Hit: 1d6 + charisma modifier psychic damage, and you become invisible until the end of your next turn.
Miss: You gain concealment against the target until the end of your next turn.


That's way more than cleaning up my formatting. I'd forgotten the beguiler was Cha-based, rather than Int-based, for instance. I'd say invisibility is indeed too much for an at-will power: You could instead use one of the higher grades of concealment for a hit (I believe there are three levels, the third being essential invisibility).

It's very nice, I might add. You did a good job refining my hack.


As a note: Characters get 2 at-will powers at 1st level, not 3 (unless you're human).
Oh? Wow, that makes the human racial pretty awesome, because at-will powers are pretty rare.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 05:08 PM
I mean, here's the thing. See, I see (and many others as well) the Beguiler as a very good example of a good, balanced caster class (not perfectly balanced, but good enough) that is above the Warlock in usefulness but below the Wizard and Druid in terms of b0rkeness. You'd figure that a class that is already balanced would have made it to the next edition or at least have been made possible with the current powers available.

That said, do you believe that the 4e system could support a balanced Beguiler? Under the current 4e rules as has been released, can we homebrew up some powers that are balanced, keep in spirit with the 3.5 Beguiler, and play with style (specifically, 4e style)?

Yes, it could. But it's gonna take a lot of testing and designing or plenty of fine tuning before it can be launched without b0rking the game.

Saibrock
2008-06-02, 05:13 PM
That's way more than cleaning up my formatting. I'd forgotten the beguiler was Cha-based, rather than Int-based, for instance. I'd say invisibility is indeed too much for an at-will power: You could instead use one of the higher grades of concealment for a hit (I believe there are three levels, the third being essential invisibility).

It's very nice, I might add. You did a good job refining my hack.


Oh? Wow, that makes the human racial pretty awesome, because at-will powers are pretty rare.
My point was that between the two of us, it took all of about 5 seconds to come up with a solid, attractive, somewhat cool, thematically appropriate power for a class someone wanted to see. At least at first glance, it looks balanced against the other classes powers, and I could definitely see designing a whole new class being a lot easier than one might think. The Beguiler is one good homebrewer away from being reincarnated.

Eldmor
2008-06-02, 05:15 PM
I may not have a pre-order yet and might not get the books for a while after release, (penniless college kid FTL) but I like 4e. I'm already brewing stuff for a Lorwyn campaigns with my friends this summer. Might also make one based on my LARP.

Frosty
2008-06-02, 05:17 PM
That's way more than cleaning up my formatting. I'd forgotten the beguiler was Cha-based, rather than Int-based, for instance. I'd say invisibility is indeed too much for an at-will power: You could instead use one of the higher grades of concealment for a hit (I believe there are three levels, the third being essential invisibility).

the Beguiler is Int-based in 3.5 That's partially why it's so awesome and why it can fill the skill-monkey role. It needs those skillpoints.

Rutee
2008-06-02, 05:20 PM
Thematically though, aren't they both? I'd say a minor reliance on Cha wouldn't be bad for Beguilers.

Gorbash
2008-06-02, 05:21 PM
Is this another one of those Samurai PWNZ jokes?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 05:23 PM
Thematically though, aren't they both? I'd say a minor reliance on Cha wouldn't be bad for Beguilers.

Obligatory mental picture of a high CHA guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW_QCRGvT-g)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 05:24 PM
Is this another one of those Samurai PWNZ jokes?

It's not. We're serious. Does it seem like a joke?

Frosty
2008-06-02, 05:25 PM
Thematically though, aren't they both? I'd say a minor reliance on Cha wouldn't be bad for Beguilers.

Unfortunately, Beguilers rely so much on having high Saving throws that it'd really suck for them to have to invest on two different casting stats.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 05:25 PM
Unfortunately, Beguilers rely so much on having high Saving throws that it'd really suck for them to have to invest on two different casting stats.

Maybe their casting could be kicked off INT and their abilities function based on CHA?

Don Beegles
2008-06-02, 05:27 PM
The OP makes me happy. I jsut preordered the 4ePHB today and I'm rather looking forward to getting it on Friday. It's good to hear that people think the general atmosphere of the edition is good, even if the details aren't always. I usually care more about the atmosphere and how it plays than the minutiae, and if it promotes Heroic antasy it gets my preemptive vote of confidence.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 05:28 PM
The OP makes me happy. I jsut preordered the 4ePHB today and I'm rather looking forward to getting it on Friday. It's good to hear that people think the general atmosphere of the edition is good, even if the details aren't always. I usually care more about the atmosphere and how it plays than the minutiae, and if it promotes Heroic antasy it gets my preemptive vote of confidence.

Yeah, I was chatting with the owner of my local store... he has 40 pre orders for the PHB... woot! (he's also having a sweepstakes for more store credit, you get 1 entry into the drawing per core book you preordered)

Frosty
2008-06-02, 05:30 PM
Maybe their casting could be kicked off INT and their abilities function based on CHA?

None of their abilities are based off of a stat right now anyways, unless you count Feinting, which is a Bluff check and hence based off of CHA.

Beguilers don't get that many class abilities. They get Cloaked Casting, 2 metamagics for free, and advanced learning, and the ability to Feint as a move action. That's pretty much it.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 05:30 PM
The OP makes me happy. I jsut preordered the 4ePHB today and I'm rather looking forward to getting it on Friday. It's good to hear that people think the general atmosphere of the edition is good, even if the details aren't always. I usually care more about the atmosphere and how it plays than the minutiae, and if it promotes Heroic antasy it gets my preemptive vote of confidence.

One word of advice: Don't make any judgements until you play a bit. To many, 4th reads horribly, but most find it amazing in practice.

Rutee
2008-06-02, 05:31 PM
Unfortunately, Beguilers rely so much on having high Saving throws that it'd really suck for them to have to invest on two different casting stats.

WEll, we're talking 4e, no? 4e lets you choose one of two stats for multiple defenses (Reflex is Int or Dex, Will is Wis or Cha, f'rex). Almost every class has "MAD" as 3.5 would define it, with 2 stats being important to your offense and a third one that can be useful as well.

So, thematically, a Beguiler is both tied to Int, and Cha, yes?

Frosty
2008-06-02, 05:37 PM
WEll, we're talking 4e, no? 4e lets you choose one of two stats for multiple defenses (Reflex is Int or Dex, Will is Wis or Cha, f'rex). Almost every class has "MAD" as 3.5 would define it, with 2 stats being important to your offense and a third one that can be useful as well.

So, thematically, a Beguiler is both tied to Int, and Cha, yes?

Thematically, you are absolutely correct. The Beguiler should have the sharpest of wit and the most alluring seduction known to (wo)man. It kinda pisses me off actually that when I play beguilers I end up dumping CHA because I prioritize Int, Con, and Dex, in that order.

Trizap
2008-06-02, 05:43 PM
Speaking of Beguilers, are they mechanically possible in 4e at all? Beguiler is one of my favorite classes to play in 3.5, and if they make the sneaky caster impossible, I will be :smallfurious:

one word (but I doubt they won't include Beguilers, Beguilers seem very popular): homebrew

Moff Chumley
2008-06-02, 05:55 PM
one word (but I doubt they won't include Beguilers, Beguilers seem very popular): homebrew

A word of advice, friend: READ THE FRAGGIN THREAD!

That will be all. Also, I completely agree with the OP, but I'm worried about the five days I have to scrape together $30.

Trizap
2008-06-02, 06:20 PM
A word of advice, friend: READ THE FRAGGIN THREAD!

That will be all. Also, I completely agree with the OP, but I'm worried about the five days I have to scrape together $30.

well, no need to get mad about it......I was just being optimistic and making a suggestion, its no big deal, we simply homebrew our own Beguilers until WoTC gets the official 4E ones out, or if they don't, continue using our own, as suggested earlier in the thread, don't see what the big fuss anyways, so what if it isn't in a rulebook? that shouldn't stop you from making a Spellblender. (and yes, I know that class doesn't exist, it was to illustrate a point) or to homebrew anything else into 4E.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-02, 06:23 PM
Thematically, you are absolutely correct. The Beguiler should have the sharpest of wit and the most alluring seduction known to (wo)man. It kinda pisses me off actually that when I play beguilers I end up dumping CHA because I prioritize Int, Con, and Dex, in that order.

Since every class has 2 primary Stat (depending on powers) and one secondary (a few powers utilize another stat):

I'd peg Builder as 2/5 Cha, 2/5 Int, and 1/5 Dex.
So all powers use Cha or Int, but a few has secondary boost from Dex.
(like that Paladin is Str or Wis, but a few get boosts from Cha).

It sounds like it fits the Beguiler.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 10:33 PM
Oh? Wow, that makes the human racial pretty awesome, because at-will powers are pretty rare.

Yeah, it seems as if Humans are just a bit better than the other races in 4e.

Which is basically the same as in 3e, but for different reasons; the 3e Human was the best because of its extra feat, since feats were a scarce and precious resource. Feats in 4e are less uncommon and less precious, but the 4e Human gets so many other bonuses - well, basically, it gets one of everything. They're the Combo Pizza of 4e.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 11:01 PM
Yeah, it seems as if Humans are just a bit better than the other races in 4e.

Which is basically the same as in 3e, but for different reasons; the 3e Human was the best because of its extra feat, since feats were a scarce and precious resource. Feats in 4e are less uncommon and less precious, but the 4e Human gets so many other bonuses - well, basically, it gets one of everything. They're the Combo Pizza of 4e.

Are you sure? They seem a bit weaker or at least on par.
I mean, they get one ability score modifier instead of 2, and they get one extra At Will Power, but the problem is with the nature of "At Will Powers" being really a little bit constrained, i.e. you get to pick 2 out of the 4, and depending on which stat you've focused on 2 of them are CLEARLY superior to the other 2. So now you get to pick 3, which, in some cases just means you're picking something tied to an ability score you're not that big on... Well... for several classes this is the case... not all of them, I mean, for Fighters that's fantastic, but for Clerics? not so much...

Dark Tira
2008-06-02, 11:21 PM
Are you sure? They seem a bit weaker or at least on par.
I mean, they get one ability score modifier instead of 2, and they get one extra At Will Power, but the problem is with the nature of "At Will Powers" being really a little bit constrained, i.e. you get to pick 2 out of the 4, and depending on which stat you've focused on 2 of them are CLEARLY superior to the other 2. So now you get to pick 3, which, in some cases just means you're picking something tied to an ability score you're not that big on... Well... for several classes this is the case... not all of them, I mean, for Fighters that's fantastic, but for Clerics? not so much...

I agree. With the average feat power being drastically reduced from 3.5, humans just aren't as strong comparatively. At best they are really the second best race for any single class, but at least they are never a bad choice.

Oh and the humans best ability is the +1 to reflex, fort, and will and that's tempered by the loss of a stat boost.

Tough_Tonka
2008-06-02, 11:23 PM
the Beguiler is Int-based in 3.5 That's partially why it's so awesome and why it can fill the skill-monkey role. It needs those skillpoints.

Without homebrewing you could play a decent beguilerish character with a wizard rogue or warlock rogue combo. The fey pact warlocks have a good deal of enchantment, charming, and illusion powers right from the get go, they can even get thievery as a class skill. A first level fey pact warlock can get:

Eyebite Warlock (Fey) Attack 1
You glare at your enemy, and your eyes briefly gleam with brilliant
colors. Your foe reels under your mental assault, and you
vanish from his sight.
At-Will ✦ Arcane, Charm, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, and you are
invisible to the target until the start of your next turn.
Increase damage to 2d6 + Charisma modifier at 21st level.

Dreadful Word Warlock (Star) Attack 1
You whisper one word of an unthinkable cosmic secret to your
foe. His mind reels in terror.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Fear, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action Ranged 5
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: 2d8 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, and the target
takes a –1 penalty to Will defense until the end of your
next turn.
Star Pact: The penalty to Will defense is equal to 1 + your
Intelligence modifier.

or

Witchfire Warlock (Fey) Attack 1
From the mystic energy of the Feywild, you draw a brilliant
white flame and set it in your enemy’s mind and body. Rivulets
of argent fire stream up into the air from his eyes, mouth, and
hands; agony disrupts his very thoughts.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Fire, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. Reflex
Hit: 2d6 + Charisma modifier fire damage, and the target
takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next
turn.
Fey Pact: The penalty to attack rolls is equal to 2 + your
Intelligence modifier.

and

Curse of the Dark DreaCurse Dream Warlock (Fey) Attack 1
You inflict a waking nightmare upon your enemy so that he
can no longer tell what is real and what exists only in his mind.
Under its influence he staggers about, trying to avoid falling
from imaginary heights or stepping on unreal serpents.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Charm, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: 3d8 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, and you
slide the target 3 squares.
Sustain Minor: You slide the target 1 square, whether you hit
or miss (save ends).

Also at second level they can get:

Beguiling Tongue Warlock (Fey) Utility 2
You channel the grace and glibness of your fey patrons for a time.
Your voice gains great power and eloquence.
Encounter ✦ Arcane
Minor Action Personal
Effect: You gain a +5 power bonus to your next Bluff, Diplomacy,
or Intimidate check during this encounter.

These powers all seem to be pretty beguilerish to me.

Tough_Tonka
2008-06-02, 11:25 PM
The extra at-will power does make them at least a good choice for a wizard

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 11:36 PM
Are you sure? They seem a bit weaker or at least on par.

They're definitely not weaker.


I mean, they get one ability score modifier instead of 2, and they get one extra At Will Power, but the problem is with the nature of "At Will Powers" being really a little bit constrained, i.e. you get to pick 2 out of the 4, and depending on which stat you've focused on 2 of them are CLEARLY superior to the other 2. So now you get to pick 3, which, in some cases just means you're picking something tied to an ability score you're not that big on... Well... for several classes this is the case... not all of them, I mean, for Fighters that's fantastic, but for Clerics? not so much...

I'm fairly sure that splatbooks will include more options for At-Will powers, so that affects the "2 out of 4" argument.

I'm actually going to amend my earlier statement. I think Humans are pretty fairly balanced to the other races, maybe perhaps slightly better. I really like all of the extras that they get. Not one makes me go "meh". +5 to a skill, +1 to saves, a feat, an at-will power, access to the best racial feats... all great things to have.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-02, 11:41 PM
I like fourth edition.

I don't like that everybody seems to think they're a special, unique snowflake whose opinion on 4E merits its own thread.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 11:44 PM
I like fourth edition.

I don't like that everybody seems to think they're a special, unique snowflake whose opinion on 4E merits its own thread.

As the creator of multiple 4e threads, I'll take this as addressed to me.

I felt that each separate thread (perhaps about 1, maybe 2 a day over the past week or so) I created held merit, and asked a pertinent question or brought something pertinent to the attention of the community at large.

Bitzeralisis
2008-06-02, 11:44 PM
I feel insulted that supernatural and extraordinary abilities are done under the same format now, but I also have to give credit to whomever made up that idea because it is so darn smooth. Spells are much easier to get the hang of now. It does seem to read completely horribly and sacrilegious to the previous edition, but thinking over it, fourth edition feels much, much smoother.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-02, 11:49 PM
As the creator of multiple 4e threads, I'll take this as addressed to me.

I felt that each separate thread (perhaps about 1, maybe 2 a day over the past week or so) I created held merit, and asked a pertinent question or brought something pertinent to the attention of the community at large.

Threads about specific issues are one thing. "I like 4E" and "I don't like 4E" are another.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 11:50 PM
It does seem to read completely horribly and sacrilegious to the previous edition, but thinking over it, fourth edition feels much, much smoother.

That's basically my feeling exactly. It sounds and reads horrible, but then you try it... and it suddenly makes perfect sense. Then you go back and read it, and you see it differently that you did before.

At least, that's been my experience with it.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 11:51 PM
Threads about specific issues are one thing. "I like 4E" and "I don't like 4E" are another.

Gotcha. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

AstralFire
2008-06-02, 11:51 PM
I like fourth edition.

I don't like that everybody seems to think they're a special, unique snowflake whose opinion on 4E merits its own thread.

I'm surprised it took so long for this comment to show up. I can see where you're coming from, but I was mildly irritated that, at time of posting, every thread about 4E was a complaint.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 11:52 PM
I was mildly irritated that, at time of posting, every thread about 4E was a complaint.

Not true. I have started several non-complaint threads.

AstralFire
2008-06-02, 11:54 PM
Not true. I have started several non-complaint threads.

Yes, I've noticed. They weren't on first page, though, and I just wanted to plainly state a positive thing about it.

kwanzaabot
2008-06-03, 12:05 AM
The 4e Warlock makes me happy in bad places.

Now, if I could convert all my 3.5 stuff easily, I would so DM/play it. As it is, the monster manual disappoints me greatly (although the concepts behind the monsters are decent, and I really appreciate the Human entry), but there's not nearly enough material at the moment to do my campaign justice.

I love the amount of choice I get with 3.5, and I enjoy certain aspects of 4th (although it definitely has parts that make me cringe).

I'm gonna wait until there's a few more books out before I make up my mind fully, although odds are i'll end up using both.

Suzuro
2008-06-03, 12:08 AM
I greatly enjoy 4e, and I haven't even really played it. Maybe I'm a special case, but when I read it, it just seemed more to my liking. It's a hobby of mine, and this takes up less time, simple.


-Suzuro

AstralFire
2008-06-03, 08:58 AM
Threads about specific issues are one thing. "I like 4E" and "I don't like 4E" are another.

While this sounds good, my topic post -did- have a pretty specific point. There is more to the thread than the title.