Download them from here:
http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/ ... cRules.pdf
It's a 110-page PDF and I just learned about it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to look through it yet.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Taking it at a glance, it's a mildly cut-down version of 3e, that politely pretends that 4e is as nonexistant as Open Game Content. Backtracking from 4e makes it a large step forward, but still too far behind Pathfinder for me to give a damn about beyond tossing a copy in my "minor & novelty RPGs" folder. In terms of what it actually covers, it's somewhere in the vicinity of 2e with no splats and less spells included. Also no mention of creating magic items, as far as I can tell. Being class & level based automatically means I have less than zero interest in actually playing it anyway, though.
--
"Anko, what you do in your free time is your own choice. Use it wisely. And if you do not use it wisely, make sure you thoroughly enjoy whatever unwise thing you are doing." - HymnOfRagnorok as Orochimaru at SpaceBattles
woot Med. Eng., verb, 1st & 3rd pers. prsnt. sg. know, knows
Quote:Being class & level based automatically means I have less than zero interest in actually playing it anyway, though.
It's things like this that make me not like D&D and it's derivatives. Classes are for insects - to paraphrase. People always have the ability to change.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Quote:Dartz wrote:
Quote:Being class & level based automatically means I have less than zero interest in actually playing it anyway, though.
It's things like this that make me not like D&D and it's derivatives. Classes are for insects - to paraphrase. People always have the ability to change.
even in D&D (at least 3.5 ed) you could multiclass without too much effort.
___________________________
"I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific." - George Carlin
If people want to have actual fun playing d&d try
13th age.
Designed by Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo, so you know it has a good pedigree.
To quote a few of my friends (who play far more d&d than me): they fixed all the things.
edit: And now I'm utterly confused as to why they have the "bbcode help" link to go along with posts if they aren't going to use actual bbcode, but whatever.
http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=9764
edit #2: and hey the bbcode help link goes nowhere, joy.
-Terry
-----
"so listen up boy, or pornography starring your mother will be the second worst thing to happen to you today"
TF2: Spy
Multiclassing and feats appear to be the same as 3e, though the PDF refers you to the full Player's Handbook for lists of feats. I looked it over a little more, and it appears to just be "absolutely closed content 3.6 edition" - the biggest real change I noticed is in the XP table and drastically reduced spell lists. They look a lot like (original) Neverwinter Nights, actually, though with the only included classes being the traditional four there's obviously no Druid or PrC lists.
ETA: I'm most certainly with Dartz on the merits of concept-based or point-buy character construction, though. Distant Horizons' Eclipse: The Codex Persona does a pretty good job of breaking down 3e/3.5e d20 into something like that, and is or was Pay-What-You-Like (including $0) - and their The Practical Enchanter does something similar for magic and item creation IIRC.
Edit2: Sweno, Yuku (or at least this board, I don't use any other yuku boards) breaks inlined links like that, you have to just post them as plaintext
--
"Anko, what you do in your free time is your own choice. Use it wisely. And if you do not use it wisely, make sure you thoroughly enjoy whatever unwise thing you are doing." - HymnOfRagnorok as Orochimaru at SpaceBattles
woot Med. Eng., verb, 1st & 3rd pers. prsnt. sg. know, knows
Unfortunately, I've something of a Point-Buy addiction. I still don't especially like the idea of a 'class' as such. I'm going to blame the first Big Campaign I was ever a part of, which was SilCore based - and was Totally Awesome in every way. Classes are fine for Pre-gens and pickup games, I guess, because they make the process a lot faster - but D&D just never managed to become my thing.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Am I in a distinct minority in actually LIKING 4th edition? I thought the distinct (and nicely described) feats were a good thing. Combat seemed to go MUCH faster and more "cinematically".
Our gaming group from a few years ago was a Final Fantasy setting and theme and 4th edition seemed to work perfectly for it. The higher level encounter and daily feats even felt like "Limit Breaks". I even bought a set of those Feat Cards for my class and liked having them laid out in front of me for easy reference.
Don't get me wrong - our GM also ran a Pathfinder game and I liked that as well. But the combat system was more "crunchy" and tended to be a little slower.
I never played 4th Edition (or 3rd, for that matter, so I'm not well equipped to judge), but a description I heard of 4th -- from someone who was quite enthusiastic -- left me with the impression that it focused on combat mechanics to the detriment of role-playing. Now, since my die rolls have a distinct tendency to, ah, "inhale strongly," role-playing, sometimes genuinely clever, was often all that saved my characters. I once averted a battle with a virtually-demigod-level dragon by knowing the right words to induce cooperation: "I persuaded your wife not to try killing you." It didn't sound to me as if lines such as that would do me much good in a 4th Edition game.
-----
Big Brother is watching you. And damn, you are so bloody BORING.
If they hadn't tried to call it D&D it might not have gotten so much hate. Among class & level games, it would have held its own, and would have done better for the WOW P&P adaptation than 3e since it played like an MMO anyway with everyone spamming their specials as fast as the cooldown timer ticked over, but since the only reason for me to be interested in D&D in the first place is nostalgia when there are much better systems to be found and PF gave us all that and a well-supported new world to explore, the FLGS group moved on and I moved further yet.
And holy crap what a run-on sentence. It's like a parasentence. Maybe parasentient, like the lump of stuff you find at the back of the fridge and you don't know what it is, but it's moving. Maybe I should wake up more before attempting to post...
--
"Anko, what you do in your free time is your own choice. Use it wisely. And if you do not use it wisely, make sure you thoroughly enjoy whatever unwise thing you are doing." - HymnOfRagnorok as Orochimaru at SpaceBattles
woot Med. Eng., verb, 1st & 3rd pers. prsnt. sg. know, knows
Yeah. Everybody around here called 4e "World of Dungeoncraft".
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make
anything explode.
Sorry; never got off 1st Ed. AD&D myself; I see no reason to replace all my books and modules every three years just to line WoTC's pockets.
Quote:Logan Darklighter wrote:
Am I in a distinct minority in actually LIKING 4th edition? I thought the distinct (and nicely described) feats were a good thing. Combat seemed to go MUCH faster and more "cinematically".
Our gaming group from a few years ago was a Final Fantasy setting and theme and 4th edition seemed to work perfectly for it. The higher level encounter and daily feats even felt like "Limit Breaks". I even bought a set of those Feat Cards for my class and liked having them laid out in front of me for easy reference.
Don't get me wrong - our GM also ran a Pathfinder game and I liked that as well. But the combat system was more "crunchy" and tended to be a little slower.
My scattershot review:
I actually did kind of like 4th edition. There were a few really nice mechanics, but the game was marred by poor presentation and several fundamental flaws. I would have loved to see a game that combined the best features of the 3rd and 4th editions; instead we got the craptacular 5th edition, which backpeddles so hard from 4th edition that it crashed into 1st edition terminology. NEWS FLASH: First Edition was released 40 years ago. The only people who still care about the 1st edition rules set are the handful of people still playing the game. And if you're still playing 1st edition after 40 years, you're probably not going to be switching to a new edition anytime soon and are thus not part of their target audience.
Frustratingly enough, the only hint of 4th edition in the new game seems to be in the skill system. While that system did a great job trimming the skill boat of 3rd edition, I otherwise didn't actually like it that much. Fifth Edition thus kept one of the handful of systems from 4th edition that I actively disliked.
Many 3rd edition fans may also be up in arms because the arcane casting system is actually based heavily on the mechanics for the 3rd edition psionic system, which many DMs refused to use because they felt it was 'unbalancing' and 'overpowered' (it wasn't). It reminds me of how the 4th edition
magic missile spell was repeatedly subject to errata until it functioned more like the 3rd edition version, since players were so vehement over the issue.
The lack of feats in core gameplay is also a head scratcher. Feats were a means of customization so that you could better differentiate between Bob the Rogue and Ted the Rogue. While you can still take feats by sacrificing ability boosts, they'd better be pretty damn good feats to justify the sacrifice of two +1 ability bonuses. On a more disturbing note, the official developer position on the feat situation seems to be that making feats optional is opening up new options for players. This harkens back to the bizarre Orwellian doublespeak surrounding the 4th edition 'Essentials' line of books, where they assured everyone that they were opening up grand new player options with a 4.5 update that stripped characters of options.
As a final issue, there were two really nice mechanics introduced during the 5th edition playtest. Only one of them made it into the final product. The advantage/disadvantage system of rolling two d20s and taking the better/worse result is a great way to consolidate a billion and one situational modifiers in a manner which prevents the game breaking stacking of buffs/debuffs. This mechanic would've been a great addition to a fused 3rd/4th edition system.
The discarded mechanic involved trading points of move for miscellaneous actions. Trade five feet of move to open a door. Use another five feet of move to step through the door. Use five feet of move to close the door. Use another five feet of move to lock the door. Use five more feet of move to pull your sword. You've still got five feet of move remaining to pull out a potion with your free hand and you haven't even taken your standard action yet. This would have been tactically powerful, but so much more useful and fluid that having to take two consecutive six second rounds to accomplish the same task while also sacrificing your standard actions. Instead we're left with the ability to make a single free environmental interaction every round.
----------------------------------------------------
"Anyone can be a winner if their definition of victory is flexible enough." - The DM of the Rings XXXV
Quote:Logan Darklighter wrote:
Am I in a distinct minority in actually LIKING 4th edition? I thought the distinct (and nicely described) feats were a good thing. Combat seemed to go MUCH faster and more "cinematically".
No. You're not.
4e managed to do a good number of things right... as much as I don't like to admit it. It made the DM's job a LOT easier than 3.x did, simplifying monster generation and the like immensely. It's easier for new players to learn, and tends to play quicker on top of that. They managed to fix a lot of the non-viable or obsolete classes that plagued 3e, too. There are definite positives there, and they've won it its share of fans.
For a lot of people who knew and liked 3.x, though, it was a disappointment because of what it gave up. 4e is easier to run, yes, but at the cost of a lot of player choice and non-combat options. Players have far fewer options when it comes to character generation and advancement than they did, so it's easier to learn them all... but at the end of the day, there's still
less there. Leveling an NPC is a simple matter of incrementing a few numbers, choosing some powers, and maybe throwing on a feat... but on the same note, leveling a PC just means you increment a few numbers, choose one more power from a short list, and maybe grab a feat. Every class works on the same basic framework; on the one hand, that makes them easier to learn, but on the other, it sacrifices flavor. The classes feel more samey, even though most of them have fairly well-defined uses and tactical niches.
They tightened up a lot of the mechanics that
My
Unitarian Jihad Name is:
Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate.
Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.
Quote:Bluemage wrote:
4e managed to do a good number of things right... as much as I don't like to admit it. It made the DM's job a LOT easier than 3.x did, simplifying monster generation and the like immensely. It's easier for new players to learn, and tends to play quicker on top of that. They managed to fix a lot of the non-viable or obsolete classes that plagued 3e, too. There are definite positives there, and they've won it its share of fans.
Every class works on the same basic framework; on the one hand, that makes them easier to learn, but on the other, it sacrifices flavor. The classes feel more samey, even though most of them have fairly well-defined uses and tactical niches.
The spell system got hit the same way.
----------------------------------------------------
"Anyone can be a winner if their definition of victory is flexible enough." - The DM of the Rings XXXV
I thought 4E had a bunch of cool ideas, but didn't implement them quite as well as it could have.
But there are reasons why the two systems currently in use by me are FATE and Champions.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make
anything explode.
So... I'm getting the idea that I should just archive the D&D 5e rules that I downloaded and stick with GURPS?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
1. Huh. I didn't really get to fiddle with anything beyond late 2010. I believe the Bard had been announced then, but not released- or it was in preliminary release, but not fully available.
2. Yep. Times and costs were ridiculous. Some of the spells they integrated into it were things that should've been doable in combat-scale time- things like Knock- but as written, took ridiculous amounts of time.
Also, the ritual system itself wasn't very well-integrated into the rest of 4e. It felt like an afterthought, really- like they wrote up the classes, the powers, and the monsters, spent all this time getting them simplified and polished and
straitjacketedbalanced properly... and then slammed out a bunch of rituals in the time they had left. They weren't part of a coherent whole, the way they'd be if they were spells again.
3. ...by Jove, you're right! I retract my statement about that particular spell.
The primary point remains, though, and I believe my other examples do as well. 4e has less of the type of magic that couldn't easily be handled in an MMORPG than previous editions, and loses flavor because of it.
Some of my friends are currently rewriting/rebalancing 4e to deal with a lot of its quirks/redundancies/WTFeries. When they finish (it's been a project for several months to a year, and they're most of the way done), I'll probably be shilling it a bit. If anybody's interested, I might be able to put you in contact with them.
My
Unitarian Jihad Name is:
Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate.
Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.
Oh cool, they finally ported 4e to the 3.5 ruleset, with a few minor adjustments.
Well, 5e does look a lot like 3.5e, with less feats, and a combat chapter that seems a lot more organized. I'm not really impressed; I wasn't expecting to be impressed after Monte Cook left the project, anyway. He didn't get special credit either -- he's between Skip and Tweet in the list.
Windows 8 was the D&D 4e of operating systems to me. Both took a well known design and did something revolutionary with it, and I received both with high hopes. I thought oh cool, maybe this will be a lot better. And then it turned out I really didn't like both, even though they both have merits. Win 8 is a great tablet operating system, that's pretty decent if you have a touchscreen, but I wanted to used it on a desktop and that's less than awesome. Fourth Edition seemed like a nice well-balanced MMO, except I tend to play with pen and paper, and without minis or computers. (Seriously, being a professional programmer I get more than enough computer exposure.)
Fourth ed might have been successful if they had called it something else, I don't know. But the issues that 4e set out to solve weren't really issues to me. I don't really care about character balance -- if the abilities are different enough, the GM should be able to create stories that keep everyone in the game. If combat is "taking too long", just do less of it and more roleplaying. Honestly, I just wanted better grapple rules. And for the system to do more inspiring of characters than limiting of characters. Obviously D&D as a whole probably isn't the best choice for me, but it's all about who you game with.
-- ∇×V
Quote:Bluemage wrote:
1. Huh. I didn't really get to fiddle with anything beyond late 2010. I believe the Bard had been announced then, but not released- or it was in preliminary release, but not fully available.
The Bard was introduced in the
Player's Handbook 2, but that version was just as bland as all the stuff in the first
Player's Handbook.
Heroes of the Feywild took all the complaints about generic cut and paste classes and addressed them by getting innovative. The Skald Bard's
Skald Aura power isn't just a clone of the Cleric's
Healing Word power even though it serves the same function. It is an aura which allows all party members within it to heal themselves or someone they touch. No more dying because your turn comes before the Cleric's. Their At-Will and Encounter attacks aren't actually attacks, they're effects that modify their basic attack (which is Charisma based due to a class feature). Their Daily attacks aren't attacks either. They're powers that modify and enhance their
Skald's Aura healing power. There is even an optional class feature where you get to choose among iconic bardic perks like always being welcome at inns or being able to demand an audience with an authority figure.
----------------------------------------------------
"Anyone can be a winner if their definition of victory is flexible enough." - The DM of the Rings XXXV