HowwwwL
12-19-2009, 01:31 PM
Hi everyone, I thought I would come back and follow up after 4 months of DMing 4th edition. This is to revisit my initial review and see if my opinion has changed since that time.
After playing for 4 months, my group who consists of 6 players (5 PCs and 1 DM) are split on 4th edition. There are 2 players who dislike 4th edition with a passion, 2 players who love 4th edition and prefer it over 3.5, and 2 players who are indifferent.
I've compiled what my players like or dislike about 4th, comparing it to 3.5. It seems it always comes back to that doesn't it?
Players in favor of 4th edition.
These players likes:
1) Character Builder
2) Ease of making characters and leveling them up
3) Speed of combat
4) Tactics in combat
5) Roleplaying not sacrificed for better combat rules
Players against 4th edition.
These players dislikes:
1) Character Classes too 'vanilla'. Abilities and power effects not different enough or unique enough from each other.
2) Leveling - when choosing new powers, it feels like the same old power with some minor differences
3) Rules too 'dumbed' down or simple
4) Classes do not have roleplaying elements built into them (like Paladin losing powers, etc.)
5) Multiclassing is not good. The multiclassing feats do not bring the element of the class into play. (note: I think WoTC realizes this, because I see HYBRID classes being beta tested right now. I do agree with this assessment myself).
6) It doesn't have the same feel as the classic earlier editions, too generic.
The ones who are indifferent are myself and one other person. We like aspects of both games.
Because of this (and to keep peace in our group), I've done some investigation into Pathfinder (also known as D&D 3.75). I've been very impressed by the changes they have made to the 3.5 system. So much so, I am going to offer it as an option to my group tonight.
The major things the pro 4th edition people disliked about 3.5 was the unarmed combat rules (grappling, overrun, etc) which bought combat to a screeching halt when it happened, some races/classes were underpowered in comparison to the others (balance issues), and they mentioned some other minor things here and there that I cannot remember due to my old age, heh heh.
I think after reading through the changes in Pathfinder, this might be an option for my group here in town, based on the changes I see in this Core Rulebook.
I still think 4th edition is a solid system in itself. Again, it is not for everyone. The people who liked it the most in my group, were the people who learned how to play D&D by playing, not reading. They found 4th edition very simple to understand and combat was easy. They found 3.5 too cumbersome. I think 4th edition does this perfectly. It provides a solid game system for new players very well.
Roleplaying was similar for us in both editions, but of course everyone has their preferences with respect to rules...
Anyways, I thought I would follow up with our experiences playing it!
After playing for 4 months, my group who consists of 6 players (5 PCs and 1 DM) are split on 4th edition. There are 2 players who dislike 4th edition with a passion, 2 players who love 4th edition and prefer it over 3.5, and 2 players who are indifferent.
I've compiled what my players like or dislike about 4th, comparing it to 3.5. It seems it always comes back to that doesn't it?
Players in favor of 4th edition.
These players likes:
1) Character Builder
2) Ease of making characters and leveling them up
3) Speed of combat
4) Tactics in combat
5) Roleplaying not sacrificed for better combat rules
Players against 4th edition.
These players dislikes:
1) Character Classes too 'vanilla'. Abilities and power effects not different enough or unique enough from each other.
2) Leveling - when choosing new powers, it feels like the same old power with some minor differences
3) Rules too 'dumbed' down or simple
4) Classes do not have roleplaying elements built into them (like Paladin losing powers, etc.)
5) Multiclassing is not good. The multiclassing feats do not bring the element of the class into play. (note: I think WoTC realizes this, because I see HYBRID classes being beta tested right now. I do agree with this assessment myself).
6) It doesn't have the same feel as the classic earlier editions, too generic.
The ones who are indifferent are myself and one other person. We like aspects of both games.
Because of this (and to keep peace in our group), I've done some investigation into Pathfinder (also known as D&D 3.75). I've been very impressed by the changes they have made to the 3.5 system. So much so, I am going to offer it as an option to my group tonight.
The major things the pro 4th edition people disliked about 3.5 was the unarmed combat rules (grappling, overrun, etc) which bought combat to a screeching halt when it happened, some races/classes were underpowered in comparison to the others (balance issues), and they mentioned some other minor things here and there that I cannot remember due to my old age, heh heh.
I think after reading through the changes in Pathfinder, this might be an option for my group here in town, based on the changes I see in this Core Rulebook.
I still think 4th edition is a solid system in itself. Again, it is not for everyone. The people who liked it the most in my group, were the people who learned how to play D&D by playing, not reading. They found 4th edition very simple to understand and combat was easy. They found 3.5 too cumbersome. I think 4th edition does this perfectly. It provides a solid game system for new players very well.
Roleplaying was similar for us in both editions, but of course everyone has their preferences with respect to rules...
Anyways, I thought I would follow up with our experiences playing it!