Adjusting to 4e, worth it?

[WFB Phish]

Okay, i used to be a pretty decent Dnd player about 2 years ago, i had a steady campaign with some friends mostly goofing off :). We got to like level 14ish then we all went off to different schools. I recently got the itch to play again and i realized there was a new edition! At first i was excited who doesn't like new rules?

Yet i was thouroughly dissapointed. Everything was simple...and wizards were ruined! I like the paragon paths and stuff they are pretty cool. But i would much prefer epic classes!

Speaking of which, after writing this I have decided that since my favorite class is somewhat dead in my opinion, what's the best way to level a wizard and whats the most fun class combos with it? Epic in particular. When I leveled mine i kept it straight wizard.

[holywhippet]

4E is a different experience than all previous editions. The system is intended to be more balanced now - no class stands out as being far more powerful, they just have different roles to fill.

"Straight" is a bit irrelevant in 4E. Multiclassing is nothing like what it was in 3E. You basically either make your class feature some of the abilities of another class or you swap out some of your powers for those of another class. However, when your reach level 11 you can take a paragon level class that isn't from your original class if you have the right multiclass feats.

It is a bit simplified, although you might consider it streamlined. There is a greater focus on tactics in combat.

[Kaihaku]

I'm playing a 4e Wizard for the first time now, I'll let you know in a few levels.

As I see it, basically, 4e is extremely balanced, plays very smoothly, and is generally awesome for a certain style of game. Unfortunately, if one wants to play a different style of game then it doesn't work so well. It has more in common with 2e than 3.5, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is limiting in many respects.

[WFB Phish]

I definitely agree, the best word i could come up with to describe the 4e experience is "limiting". I have yet do to any actual fighting/combat, just been making character sheets so i can't comment on the tactical fighting. But still something in me just wants to see my section of spells at the end of the players hand book :/

[Artanis]

I have yet do to any actual fighting/combat, just been making character sheets so i can't comment on the tactical fighting.

That's your problem right there

[RTGoodman]

I definitely agree, the best word i could come up with to describe the 4e experience is "limiting". I have yet do to any actual fighting/combat, just been making character sheets so i can't comment on the tactical fighting.

It might seem "limiting" as far as powers and stuff like that, but remember that 4E is still young (only 7 months and a few days, I think) - give it several years and enough time for 3 Player's Handbooks, a handful of X Power sourcebooks, and whatever all else they publish, and then you'll find just as many options as 3.x gave you, I think.

I think you'll also be surprised about flexibility in the actual game, too. The big thing to remember that, unlike 3.x, 4E is focused on the PARTY, not the individual. While you might not be able to, as a Wizard in 4E, handle things single-handedly, you'll (ideally) be coordinating with your party to make optimal tactical choices, pick the best spells/exploits/powers for each situation, and still have to worry about whether or not to expend your limited resources (action points, daily powers, item powers, etc.).

But still something in me just wants to see my section of spells at the end of the players hand book :/

Why would you need that when EVERY class has a 10-page spell list, PLUS a slew of Paragon Paths with their own powers. And the sourcebooks and Dragon Magazine articles all multiply that, too, with Martial Power (and probably Arcane, Divine, Primal, etc. Power books, too) having MOST of the book dedicated to class powers.


As to your original question as to the "best" way to play a Wizard, the answer is that there's really not one. 4E doesn't really require a huge amount of optimization - as long as you've got a good score in your prime ability and a decent one in your other, you're pretty well set. Some powers and feats and stuff are definitely better than others, but you're never going to be really USELESS.

[Innis Cabal]

You don't get spells. They are rituals, and anyone can take them

As to the question, I think its not. It is very limited, and there is not a whole lot of styles you can play, combat is slower then it is in 3.5 and thats saying something. I found my few games to be..boring

[Mando Knight]

I have yet do to any actual fighting/combat,

This is the problem. Character sheets and abilities in 4E are geared almost exclusively towards their use in Skill Challenges (for skills) and combat (Powers, most class abilities). Really, the tactical side of 4E is about 90% of its crunch.

Instead of 3.5's epic class progression, WotC decided to instead use Epic Destinies. IMO, EDs are a lot more interesting, discounting the Epic Spellcasting cheese from 3.5.

The main reason why the Wizards lack 50-70% of their old spell lists is that WotC had to spend far more time and resources developing the Not-Cleric-Or-Wizard power lists. Fighters, Paladins, Rogues, and Rangers have as many power selections as a Wizard in core. The Martial characters (Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Warlord) approximately doubled their power, Paragon Path, and Epic Destiny selections in Martial Power, the Wizard will easily gain back a significant fraction of his old 3.5 spell list in Arcane Power (with Rituals filling in a large amount of the Cleric/Wizard spells that weren't for combat use).

[Avor]

{Scrubbed}

[KKL]

{Scrubbed}

[AgentPaper]

I'm really not seeing why people think that 4E is like WoW. I play WoW, and I play other games, and I play 3.5 and 4E, and I just can't see where in the hell this comes from. Do you think the art looks similar? Is it because of it's focus on balance? I could maybe see it being compared to a videogame because it draws some good ideas that are also used in game design, but that doesn't make it a video game.

Anyways, adjusting to 4E is always worth it, in my opinion, as it's a very easy system to learn compared to 3.5, and even easier if you know 3.5. That said, whether or not you should convert depends on whether you want to play a game or a simulation. 3.5 is more "realistic" in a loose sense of the term, whereas 4E, while more balanced, is also more abstract. It's all up to playstyle. If nothing else, try it out if you get the chance. You may like it, you may hate it, but you can't know until you try.

[RTGoodman]

{Scrubbed}

I was even going to (jokingly) put "In before the WoW accusation" in my first power...

If nothing else, try it out if you get the chance. You may like it, you may hate it, but you can't know until you try.

I was actually coming back to say thing same thing, but with the lag AgentPaper beat me to it. If you can get people together to try it out, well, do it. I mean, there are worse things you could spend your time with friends doing than trying out a game to see if you like it or not. The only things I suggest are: (1) GET THE ERRATA from the WotC website - it'll make things a LOT better; (2) don't try to do skill challenges exactly by the rules, and especially not the stupid ones originally printed - winging it is kinda the best way I've found; and (3) don't use the MM races, especially not the ones with the Oversized trait - they're not particularly great for PCs, so I'd just wait until they're actually published to play one if you can.

[KKL]

(3) don't use the MM races, especially not the ones with the Oversized trait - they're not particularly great for PCs, so I'd just wait until they're actually published to play one if you can.

Pretty much all of the MM races are fine as they are, Oversized aside.

[Random NPC]

I played 4e and after a while, it got tiring.

It does feel like WoW in the sense that when we are fighting, it seems like we have mana and health bars. It's too out of touch with reality. It doesn't make sense sometimes. It's balanced, but it doesn't -feel- real.

[Colmarr]

I'll second the "yes" vote.

I don't really believe that 4e is any more limiting than 3e was. The people who pursue that argument are usually talking largely about the loss of the spell lists.

While wizards/clerics/druids might have lost a lot of their options in the transfer to 4e, virtually everyone else picked up a bucketload more.

[RTGoodman]

Pretty much all of the MM races are fine as they are, Oversized aside.

The ones without Oversized might be okay, but I figure they've done a bit of changing on all the ones updated in Dragon, so the rest will probably change, too. I know Minotaurs, Gnolls, Warforged, and Drow, and I think Shadar-Kai (later this month), plus the Gnome (among others) in the PHB2, have all gotten re-writes that occasionally change big things about the racial stats, so I'd just err on the side of not using them anyway.

Plus, the lack of racial feats SUCKS. I mean, the races MIGHT be on par with PHB races as far as abilities go, but they do lose out on a lot of cool stuff.

[BobVosh]

I miss skills, and I miss the bucket of neat spells.

That said if you treat it less as a roleplaying game, and more as a mini game its fun.

As for being like wow, it is pretty easy to see: there is an actual aggro like mechanic, fighters and paladins have it I believe (they take damage if they don't attack the aforementioned characters)
All classes get 1-2, 3? haven't looked much further than level 10, powers per level
All classes are made to be even, with 3 roles, healer, tank, and dps.
Tieflings and whatever that new dragon race is called suck. Nothing really to do with wow, but I hate them so
It is popular to say things you hate resemble WoW, which is popular to hate because so many like it

As one of my friends said: D&D has gone full circle from minis game to RPG, back to a Minis game.

[Kaihaku]

I don't really believe that 4e is any more limiting than 3e was. The people who pursue that argument are usually talking largely about the loss of the spell lists.

I'm not.

While wizards/clerics/druids might have lost a lot of their options in the transfer to 4e, virtually everyone else picked up a bucketload more.

Everyone else was transformed into a caster, a modified sorcerer to be exact. There may be different roles but each class at its core works in exactly the same way. That's great for balance but it sucks for diversity. 3.5 had some serious balance issues because WotC either wouldn't or couldn't devise how to balance non-casters with casters. In 4e (and it's prototype Tome of Battle) they "resolved" that by just making everyone a caster. That's great for people who wanted to play a caster, who wanted their abilities to be limited to what specific powers they had. It sucks for those of us who liked having more open-endedness.

Now, I enjoy playing a sorcerer but sometimes I want to play a rogue or a fighter. Sometimes, I want to do something really crazy and play a completely social-oriented changeling, a healer who never harms other living beings, or a sickly thief who solves problems solely through subterfuge. Yes, you can still do those in 4e but they suck far more than they did in 3.5.

Yes, the 3.5 skills system was flawed. Yes, martial combat in 3.5 was flawed. Yes, the 3.5 magic system was seriously flawed. Making everyone into pumped-up sorcerers with different flavor attached "fixes" that by amputation. It's still a great game and I enjoy playing 4e, but it's not what it could have been; it's better than 3.5 but less at the same time.

[Panda-s1]

Is it worth it? Well it was for me, but for you... Hmm, well wizards may not have a quarter of the PHB to themselves anymore, but they still have the practiced spellcaster feel to them. They get more automatic rituals than any other class (and seem to be the only class that gets more as they level up). And the cantrips, gotta love those. Wizards get to do all kinds of fiddly tricks with their magic.

Unfortunately though, while I loved being cleric in 3.x, I never was one for being an arcane caster, but now wizard doesn't seem like a bad class to play IMO. And seeing the new sorcerer they're no longer the class that follows in the shadow of the wizard, they actually do cool magic tricks for being a non-practiced spellcaster.

But I'm really getting ahead of myself. Go ahead and try it, be an awesome wizard, and just remember wizards are the only class (without using a feat) that can choose one of two daily and utility spells for the day for every daily/utility slot they have.

Now, I enjoy playing a sorcerer but sometimes I want to play a rogue or a fighter. Sometimes, I want to do something really crazy and play a completely social-oriented changeling, a healer who never harms other living beings, or a sickly thief who solves problems solely through subterfuge. Yes, you can still do those in 4e but they suck far more than they did in 3.5.

I really can't see how social characters suck more in 4e than in 3.5. Sure you lost some skills like disguise. And perform... and.... um.... Yeah. Honestly, I'm just not seeing it. And considering the majority of class abilities in 3.5 were combat oriented anyway, I can't see how that's changed either.

I mean 4e bards get a class power that gives them a +5 to Diplomacy for crying out loud.

[TheOOB]

4e dramatically increases your actions in combat unless you are a wizard or cleric, in which case you have roughly the same options as everyone else (wizard actually has much more, keeping something similar to their old memorization mechanic and having access to a lot more rituals).

Characters do start off very simple at level 1, but they gain more variety quickly. At level 10 you will have 2 at-will powers, 3 encounter powers, 3 daily powers, 3 utility powers, a racial power, probably 1-3 class powers, 6 feats, 5+ magic items(many with their own powers), and still have all the powers available to everyone(basic attack, second wind, bull rush, ect). Your looking at an extreme amount of customization, and plenty of choices of what to do each round of combat (heck not counting class inherent, racial, item, or feat powers you have 11 powers, that's plenty of options right there).

Also, as mentioned above, you are building a party, not a character. Characters need to mesh well together. A warlord may use an attack that allows all their allies to make a ranged attack, or a wizard may use thunder wave to push an enemy into a paladins damage zone for a deadly combination. Positioning, tactics, and synergy are the name of the game, creating an infinite amount of ways to use your power selection.

There are some aspects of 3.5 I miss. I miss having the toolbox of spells, even if it was overpowered(wizards and clerics have lots of useful powers and anyone can use rituals, but it's not quite the same), I miss the ease of multiclassing to create strange character archtypes(though the multiclassing system is very good, if limited, and paragon paths and epic destinies manage to capture the coolness of prestige classes without all the balance problems.)

4e is not for everyone, but it is a great game. It started out great, and it is only getting better. Dragon has release numerous cool additions to the system(powers, paragon paths, feats, ect), and martial power really fleshed out the martial classes, tremendously increasing their play options and fixing many of the problems with the classes(mainly that some of the classes had levels with powers that were not greatly useful to particular builds, roughly doubling the number of powers seems to have fixed this.)

[Oracle_Hunter]

Yet i was thouroughly dissapointed. Everything was simple...and wizards were ruined! I like the paragon paths and stuff they are pretty cool. But i would much prefer epic classes!

Speaking of which, after writing this I have decided that since my favorite class is somewhat dead in my opinion, what's the best way to level a wizard and whats the most fun class combos with it? Epic in particular. When I leveled mine i kept it straight wizard.

So, what I'm hearing here is that you're missing the following:
(1) The power level of 3E Wizards
(2) The "build" side of the game

If this is what you found most fun about 3E, then 4E just isn't for you. "Builds" are necessarily less complicated, since multiclassing does not offer the sort of dip-builds popular in 3E.

Wizards have been brought more in line with the power levels of other classes to make for more of a "team" game, rather than a "niche" game. That is to say, 4E PCs must work together to solve problems, while 3E PCs often operated independently inside their own niches.

What 4E does have to offer is:
(1) A better non-caster gaming experience
(2) A more "beer and pretzels" and less "spreadsheets and encyclopedias" method of character design.
(3) Dynamic combat (particularly for non-casters)
(4) Less "save or suck" combat, and more "meat grinder" combat

Below are assertions made already in the thread that I disagree with:

Spoiler

Show

(1) 4E Combat is Too Slow

Spoiler

Show

4E combat appears to be slower because no fight can be "solved" by the application of a single "save or suck" spell. HPs are important once again, and position and teamwork are now key to winning battles.

The actual combat mechanics are at the very least simpler than 3E's mechanics. Grappling rules, AoO rules, and the amount of miscellaneous modifiers have all bee paired down and streamlined; heck, Bull Rush can now be described in a few short lines. Your combat options are helpfully compartmentalized into "powers," each of which can be easily written on an index card apiece. This is compared to the sort of page-thumbing a wizard might have to do before deciding which version of Summon Monster to cast, for example.

I have found the tactical combat experience to be generally rewarding and, after a little practice, much quicker to resolve (at the very least, when measured by the time it takes the average player to declare and enact their action for a round).

(2) 4E is not a RPG, it is a tactical battlefield game

Spoiler

Show

What does that even mean?

Anyhow, this sort of comment stems from the fact that the 4E rulebooks are long on combat rules, and short on rules regarding the tying of rope. Many of the out-of-combat mechanisms have been simplified, to be sure, but they were done so in response to a gaming public which was much less interested in the encumbrance rating of a flying carpet, and more interested in blowing up orcs.

The thesis of this gaming philosophy is this: if it's not important for the story, don't roll for it. Generally speaking, a story does not hinge on exactly how good a meal your fighter cooked for breakfast, or how well your Rogue can sing, so the DM can either make an ad hoc ruling (relying helpfully on the table presented on DMG 42), or just say "OK, you do it." You are adventurers, not bakers - why do you want to invest your hard-earned training time in making the perfect bundt cake?

This does not, mind you, make it any less of a role-playing game since, at least in my games, you do, in fact, play the role of an adventurer in a fantastic realm. You can still pinch the wenches and paint funny faces on your sleeping party members, and have epic tales of pain and sorrow. You don't need any rules to do that, and the 4E system certainly does not inhibit you from acting as you'd like.

(3) 4E is like WoW

Spoiler

Show

And if it is, so what? Having never played WoW (though I have played other MMOs) I can't really see the comparison. In my experience, the major restrictions I've found in MMOs are as follows:
- Difficulty in conveying the sort of RP experience in-person gaming provides
- An inability to "go off the rails" of the story
- An inability to take actions which are not strictly allowed by the rule set
- A limited palette for depicting characters

None of these problems come up in 4E. Since nobody who claims "4E is WoW" ever explains what substantive problems this presents, I'm afraid I may be missing whatever irks them so.

Those are my thoughts. I do hope you at least try a couple of games (though not the KotS module!) to see if you can like it. An open mind in gaming (as in many things) keeps you from missing out on enjoyable experiences where you would not expect them.

[kieza]

The group I DM switched to 4e the moment it came out, and except for one or two of the 11 in two groups I'm now running, everyone likes it better than 3.5. Thinking on it, we can sort of boil it down to a handful of reasons:

• All classes are equally fun to play, personal preference aside. The role of healer (Note: not the role of Cleric; that's different) is no longer less fun, the Fighter is not overshadowed at higher levels, and the Rogue is effective against all enemy types, among other things.
• The system is less complicated. There are no differing subsystems for spells and weapon attacks, AC and saves, grappling, bull rush, etc. Everything runs off of the concept of d20+one or more ability scores vs. target number.
• There are no longer lists of rules for everything under the sun, and anything not covered in the rules can be handled via a quick ruling from the DM via page 42. The page gives a variety of DCs, damage, and other stuff appropriate for every level. (Tonight, I handled the party wizard repurposing one of his spells to knock over a pillar with five words: "Intelligence check vs. DC 20.")
• Magic Items are a complement to a character, not a necessity. You can be completely functional with three items: weapon or implement, armor, and amulet or cloak. They don't have to even have powers, and the ones that do don't overshadow the character's powers.
• I as the DM love that it's easier to prep for sessions: monsters run off of simplified creation rules and are structured to be run easier in combat. I no longer have to worry about spells that can bypass an interesting, plot-important adventure in ten minutes.

If I have one piece of advice, it's this: find a DM with an active imagination and a good grasp of the rules, especially page 42. The simplified system makes it much easier to push rules and combat to the background and focus on character development and storytelling.

[Asbestos]

You don't get spells. They are rituals, and anyone can take them

Yes, but some get much much more of them and not everyone is at all likely to get them. Personally, rituals and cantrips have made my Wizard incredibly fun to play, outside of combat the wizard is still, easily, the utility guy. It just takes him more time and costs him more gold sometimes.

[cupkeyk]

In 3.5, i played spell casters too, including a coma-mancer wizard (reduce an ability to zero for the win) and a bard/sublime chord buffer.

I initially tried playing as a warlord because it seemed similar in gameplay to my bard, I get to fight and provide additional attacks with bonuses. It didn't sit well with me and I switched, with dm blessing, to an Orb wizard.

it is exactly like having my coma-mancer back except i am stuck with sleep as my only comamancer spell. i have other options, particularly with battle field control. I create zones and walls to grab advantage. 4e wizard plays differently from 3.5 wizard that you will unlikely have the right spell somewhere for every possible situation. You will never be batman again, but other than your utility belt, you can still kick ass with the same tactics.

[Kaihaku]

I really can't see how social characters suck more in 4e than in 3.5. Sure you lost some skills like disguise. And perform... and.... um.... Yeah. Honestly, I'm just not seeing it.

There are a number of character options that have been lost but I'll stick to ones that I've used that I don't expect will appear in future supplements to 4e.

Leadership was nasty, buggy, and beautiful. A decent player using it to form their own gang, business, or random other social entity.

Craft(Wordsmith) allowed the opportunity to be mechanically be a renowned author in a campaign. If someone wants to field a middle-aged goblin who does investigate reporting for the city paper that's now all fluff. Craft was poorly balanced against other skills but instead of fixing it WotC just axed it completely.

Profession was basically useless for anything save fluff in 3.5. Instead of making it more relevant it was axed, which sucks for people like me who used it to give substance to claims of being the City's Healer or having my own Brewery.

Perform was, as you say, a nice skill to use to interact with vast amounts of people. Oration, Comedy, and Acting allowed for unusual ways of influencing masses. It is true that few ever took advantage of those means because, mechanically, they were mostly useless without some imagination. Instead of making them useful, WotC axed them.

Now many of those things you can still do with the grace of your Dungeon Master. That's great but it has absolutely nothing to do with system changes. I doubt there is a system in existence that can't be fun with the right Game Master and the right players. The point is that those elements are mechanically gone.

And considering the majority of class abilities in 3.5 were combat oriented anyway, I can't see how that's changed either.

That is certainly true. Dungeons and Dragons has always leaned heavily towards combat, I feel that 3e took a few steps away from that tradition and that 4e is a step back. It's only a step, 4e still allows a great deal more than 2e did and it is a beautiful system... It plays like a charm for one of the most popular styles of play.

I like the concept of Skill Challenges, it's a great idea. Including guidelines for something that most skilled Dungeon Masters have learned to do innately is wonderful. I wish these sort of guidelines had been around when my original Dungeon Masters were learning.

What I don't like is how linearly Skill Challenges, especially social ones, are presented. In 3.5 the Diplomacy skill was broken but it left open a wide range of options for a player to attempt. Now, in 4e the Diplomacy skill isn't "fixed" instead it's been regulated to a step in a path towards an ultimate goal. It isn't open ended anymore. Now, by the grace of the Dungeon master it may drastically change things but that's not necessarily the case.

I mean 4e bards get a class power that gives them a +5 to Diplomacy for crying out loud.

Really, crying out loud?

What is Diplomacy is 4e? It certainly is not broken as it was in 3.5 but what is it's place now? Is it important, capable of drastically changing the path a campaign follows...or is it one optional stepping stone among many in the greater path of plot?

All classes are equally fun to play, personal preference aside. The role of healer (Note: not the role of Cleric; that's different) is no longer less fun, the Fighter is not overshadowed at higher levels, and the Rogue is effective against all enemy types, among other things.

The role of the healer (Note: not the role of the Cleric; that's different) no longer exists as such. Hit something to heal something else is not archetypically the role of the healer. Personally, while it takes a bit of doing I have always greatly enjoyed playing the role of the healer in 3.5.

"Builds" are necessarily less complicated, since multiclassing does not offer the sort of dip-builds popular in 3E.

Which is definitely a major plus for 4e.

Wizards have been brought more in line with the power levels of other classes to make for more of a "team" game, rather than a "niche" game. That is to say, 4E PCs must work together to solve problems, while 3E PCs often operated independently inside their own niches.

Two more big pluses.

What 4E does have to offer is:
(1) A better non-caster gaming experience

Definitely more balanced.

(2) A more "beer and pretzels" and less "spreadsheets and encyclopedias" method of character design.

Some people enjoy "spreadsheets and encyclopedias", complicated isn't necessarily a negative.

(3) Dynamic combat (particularly for non-casters)

Another plus.

(4) Less "save or suck" combat, and more "meat grinder" combat

This is one that I don't see as a positive. I don't like the new emphasis on damage. Instant win spells were a problem but making damage the centerpiece of everything was not the only, or in my opinion the best, solution.

(1) 4E Combat is Too Slow

As I've seen it, 4e Combat is only slower in the learning stage. Once people have a grasp of the changes it tends to move more quickly.

(2) 4E is not a RPG, it is a tactical battlefield game

As I see it...
1E was a tactical battlefield game. 2E less so than 1E. 3E much less so than 2E. 4E more so than 3E but less so than 2E.

Many of the out-of-combat mechanisms have been simplified, to be sure, but they were done so in response to a gaming public which was much less interested in the encumbrance rating of a flying carpet, and more interested in blowing up orcs.

You are making the assumption again that complicated is a negative in the minds of most people. That is not true, there is a substantial portion of the "gaming public" that enjoys complexity and depth. There could have been a better balance than the one 4e struck.

The thesis of this gaming philosophy is this: if it's not important for the story, don't roll for it. Generally speaking, a story does not hinge on exactly how good a meal your fighter cooked for breakfast, or how well your Rogue can sing, so the DM can either make an ad hoc ruling (relying helpfully on the table presented on DMG 42), or just say "OK, you do it."

There's something to be said for that gaming philosophy but there's also something to be said for investing mechanically in hobbies, skills, interests... It adds a certain stability to character depth. I'm not just saying that I'm a good cook, I have the ranks in Kraft(Foods) to prove it. I've played freeform for years and there's something to be said for having a character's skillset more completely fleshed out.

You are adventurers, not bakers - why do you want to invest your hard-earned training time in making the perfect bundt cake?

Adventurers have to come in one shape and form? They have to "train" at adventuring constantly and they can't have other hobbies, even professions, that might be relevant at some point in an epic tale?

This does not, mind you, make it any less of a role-playing game since, at least in my games, you do, in fact, play the role of an adventurer in a fantastic realm. You can still pinch the wenches and paint funny faces on your sleeping party members, and have epic tales of pain and sorrow. You don't need any rules to do that, and the 4E system certainly does not inhibit you from acting as you'd like.

Precisely right. I've played freeform a great deal and you don't need rules to roleplay. You don't even need a game. But sometimes it's nice to have that structure, even for "unimportant" things like professions, musical talents, and hobbies.

(3) 4E is like WoW

I can't say as I've never played WoW.

[Curmudgeon]

There is much less flexibility in each class in 4E. You used to be able to make a pure skillmonkey Rogue (spend all your feats on things like Quick Reconnoiter, Magic Aptitude, & c.). Now the Rogue is designated as a Striker -- a martial class, and everything they get at 1st level is an Attack of some sort.

Most feats are restricted to particular class and/or race combinations. This keeps class overlap to a minimum. If you want to mix together disparate class elements you really need to stick with 3.5.

In contrast, there are many more options in combat built into the power system. Very few attacks are "basic" roll-to-hit vs. AC; most of the time you'll be using some sort of class-specific power which gives you different ways of going about hitting the enemy -- something like using a 3.5 skill trick every round.

WotC really started with a clean slate. Was it worth it? I don't know yet. While the classes all seem pretty balanced, they also seem quite restrictive to me. Maybe more supplements will help.

[its_all_ogre]

depends largely on playstyle.
my group prefer 4e because it relies on them working as a team, where 3.5 didn't.
i'd say it was worth it.
character creation is simpler, but there are decisions made which carry massive consequence.

i'd also disagree about lack of options compared to 3.5.
technically there are less, but in reality i find that there are more options which are good and less which are pointless and lead to massive suckage.

feats which were pointless abounded in 3.5, not so in 4e.
so in reality there are more good options in 4e than there were in 3.5 is my experience.
also race makes a massive difference in certain cases, while still allowing you to play unusual combinations effectively: eladrin race are a good example, have a ranger in my game who pulls their weight despite being a 'suboptimal' race for the class.
halfling makes a surprisingly good paladin. dragonborn make unexpectedly good clerics.
it is much harder to make a crappy character without doing so deliberately when compared to 3.5. and the phb recommendations are actually good whereas in 3.5 they were rubbish. (level one fighter take weapon focus and imp initiative if human? NO! power attack and cleave!)

you do need to play a few combats though to really grasp the tactical changes to the game:
rogues tend to do the most damage but need help to do so
fighters can keep lots of enemies fighting themselves, but do it without back up and they'll just die
warlords and clerics cannot do a fighter job well enough(hard lesson for me!)

play a few one off encounters with a bunch of mates just to learn the combat system and use index cards for powers and you should be fine.

[Kurald Galain]

It doesn't add anything that previous editions didn't have (beyond the OMG it's new factor).

It has a tendency to get repetitive - both on the short run (after a few rounds, combat tends to stagnate as both sides have run out of encounter powers) and in the long run (too many high-level things are simply a palette swap of low-level things).

It has failed to make combats run faster.

And it doesn't allow for several archetypes that in other games are available straight out of the box. Future splats may alleviate that, but it appears to be by design that you shouldn't try to make a power/utility tradeoff.

That doesn't mean it's a bad game, certainly not. But once the initial "OMG new shiny" has worn off, it isn't all that impressive either. I've seen several players think that it was nice but we should now get back to the games we were playing earlier.

[AngelOmnipotent]

To be honest I hated it. Sure it was novel when the idea first came out, but during the game I felt like all of my freedom had been ripped away from me only being able to do what these powers said I could do.

That being said some of the powers are interesting, but at lower levels you couldn't use most of them because if you did you'd be sending them into the wind. Your normal attacks had a better chance to hit and did considerably more damage. It also seemed like the monsters could do more interesting things than we could. And a single Kobold with the capacity to wipe out an entire party is a bit silly.

Each combat feels the same, you have a "rotation" of powers that you do in certain orders, of where characters stand for the most efficient combat, and once you've figured that out it becomes deathly boring. The Wizards-written campaigns are also just hack-and-slash Dungeon crawls that seem to have no thought put into them whatsoever. For example our group ended up in a Dungeon for what seemed to be no apparent reason. We got to the point where each room was a full scale combat - no puzzles, no traps, no thinking involved, just hitting things.

He turned to us and said: "Well all I can see right now is that you have 4 rooms to go. They're all the same and the boss in the last room. There's no real reason for going in there apart from XP, as there's no advance of the non-existant plot in this game. Shall we just skip it and say you did it?" Yeah... a game shouldn't leave you feeling that way.

The combats last too long with you doing exactly the same thing each round, and in all honest if you make a character that tries to focus on skills rather than combat, you'll hardly be doing anything at all.

Spellcasters no longer come as varients - they'll all have the same optimized spells because if you don't you make your character redundant. Clerics can't focus on turning undead, or healing, or raising undead, or a battle-cleric, or spellcasting, it's just a tidy little package that does a bit of both and sucks at it all.
Fighters can't focus on archery anymore, or any kind of specific tactic. They get to push enemies around, slide them a few squares and force them to hit the fighter rather than the party. I miss tripping, grappling, disarming them and sundering their weapon into pieces leaving them completely defenseless.

The roleplaying aspect seems to have been mercilessly ripped out of the game like it was a tumor that no one paid attention to. Sure, most roleplaying comes from the player, but it doesn't feel right when you're having to make things up about your character because the option isn't there on your character sheet. For example your Rogue may be good at lying but not very diplomatic, but in 4e it doesn't matter because they're all in the same skill! A Ranger may be good at spotting things but not good at searching for hidden things, but of course it doesn't matter because it's all in the same skill!

In short: I hated it. Unless you build -the- optimized character you're going to find yourself as useful as a wet lettuce. If you're built around non-combat situations like a trap monkey or a skills based person you're going to be finding yourself doing nothing at all. Deviation from the normal seems to be punished as we're all pushed down the same, very narrow corridor.

[MartinHarper]

Some of the powers are interesting, but at lower levels ... your normal attacks had a better chance to hit and did considerably more damage.

Odd. That's not my experience at all. Could you given an example?

your Rogue may be good at lying but not very diplomatic, but in 4e it doesn't matter because they're all in the same skill!

Bluff and Diplomacy and Intimidation are all different skills in 4e, just as in 3.5e.