If we heard that a new Temple-ish turn-based combat simulator were coming out, but that it would be under 4th edition rules, would you all be rejoicing or cringing? At best I've only skimmed 4th edition so far.
I would be cringing ... although 4th ed isn't in any way designed for turned base combat. In my opinion it's just a weak attempt at making DnD more like WoW.
cringe worthy, as far as i'm concerned 3.5 was the last 'true' dnd ruleset , perhaps pathfinder is also a valid alternative(tho its added complexity level may be a bit excessive) but the 4th edition rules are pretty much a nasty reflection of the current gaming trend of 'reinventing the wheel' by oversimplification/average joe insta-action friendly orientation, then again maybe we (or me in particular) faill to see the benefits of the 4th edition 'muttie' ruleset as the flagship for the dnd world.
Never heard of pathfinder. Maybe I should check it out. I've been "trimming" DnD since the 70's anyway, and keeping the complexity that I like.
So, I've been playing 4ED for about 3 years now and it's a significantly different game in combat. A lot of work was done to make the classes more "balanced" allowing all classes to do some sort of damage each round (I haven't played WoW but the analogy I would make is like the old Atari game "Gauntlet" where the Wizard, Valkerie, Thief could all do something each "round".) IMHO, in our pen & paper campaign that we play we strive to have as much role-playing as we did in our 1E AD&D game (I bypassed 3ED skipping directly from 2ED to 4ED). If you like that part of the game you can make it work. The combat encounters, are very different (and considerably longer) given all the specific effects (stunned, dazed, slowed, bloodied, etc.) All the games are different once they make the leap from P&P to computer, so I cut some slack there. Personally I think anything "turn based" would be fun an would look forward to it.
PS, there are also several D&D clones & simulacrums out there for each edition. So if you liked playing AD&D but want updated materials, you can look at OSRIC. All the editions have something "clonish" out there now, with Pathfinder being the most popular for 3.5 rules. I personally have recently picked up the new Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (the rules are freely available, but they're still in beta). They feel very AD&D with some interesting tweaks and sensible updates (e.g., AC starts low and goes high).
How the AC thing took this long to happen, or was ever even in its original state in the first place, I'll never know. I still have never and am not now completely satisfied that there is a balanced (not under or over-powered) multi-classing system. And the fact that my temple group of four wizards and one sorcerer are blasting the temple to the ground... it's making me worry that the other classes actually aren't necessary except for rp, beyond 1st level or so.
Cringe. 4th feel like a jrpg/mmorpg to me. Every class gets his/her own special "magic" <power>; wizard spells are pretty much all about damage damage damage damage, monsters (abilities) feel generic, etc. There are already plenty of turn based jrpg if I want to play one.
Some of the old gold box games ... I don't know, I thought the wandering monsters every few steps felt tedious. I didn't feel the battles in temple were tedious at all. I'm trying to figure out why, because "turn based" alone isn't enough for me, it's just a start in the right direction.
i've been playing fourth edition now since it debuted, i am currently running a temple of elemental evil campaign that has two seperate groups of players, one on the side of good and one working for the temple. I have been playing since ad&d and feel that i like 4e best only because i'm not watching some players completly out distance others due to inequalities in the class system and there is no longer any fighting about who has to be the cleric. we have never really had people who like playing the party healer, but 4e roles (leader, defender, striker, controller) let people play the leader type (healing, buffing, etc) and still fight as an active combatant without having to decide "do i heal this round or attack?" most of my players also prefer 4e because it has sped up combat some and for the reasons i listed above, though i still have a few hold outs who prefer previous editions. One wants to play ad&d again because he was always a wizard, and he always wants to start at higher level so he can own the rest of the party (he has a tendancy to turn on team mates) and i have another player that prefers 3.5 because he likes to min/max the shit out of his characters (half-dragon,half-ogre, dual wielding full blades and casting spells, or pixie rogues with permanant invisability and flight). when i dm we play 4e, but if anyone else wants to dm they can feel free to play previous editions, i'll dust off my old books and roll up a character. but back on topic i would love to see a 4e game just because it would mean a new d&d game, but god yes i want a turn based game. i wish they would make a good tactics game, like final fantasy tactics or tactics ogre, and nothing like that primi atari forced out early d&d tactics on psp. if it hadn't been buggier then toee was at release maybe i would have finished it. hey maybe now that the d&d rights have reverted back to Hasbro and atari is out of the picture, we might see a big name company with a better track record gain the licence. It has to be a hot commoditiy since d&d pretty much birthed a genre of games that has a fanataic fan base.
Really? I usually avoid facebook "strategy" games as they tend to amount to pressing "click here to win the fight!" "Congratulations, you won the fight, here's XP! Now click it again if you wish to win it again!" I seriously hope 4th ed is better than typical facebook games.
i actually always thought that the ac system sucked. i mean why does a man wearing heavier armor make him less hittable? i mean what, is it like its more shiny or something? shouldnt it only effect demage resistence, and lighter armor should be easier to dodge in it?
