Kurt Wiegel really doesn’t like D&D 4th Edition

0
0

As you probably already know I greatly enjoy Kurt Wiegels regular RPG reviews on YouTube. He usually doesn’t do bad reviews and today I found out why this is a good thing. After a lot of people have been demanding a D&D 4th Edition review, he finally gave in. And it’s not a nice review, I can tell you.

And when I understand it correctly, he disagrees with D&D 4th Edition being so different from the earlier editions. I can understand that this is not to everyone’s liking, but does this make it a bad game? I strongly disagree. In a way he’s just saying: “It’s not what I wanted D&D 4th Edition to be – so it’s a bad game.”

I have to admit I like Kurt Wiegel more, when he’s reviewing games he likes!

14 thoughts on “Kurt Wiegel really doesn’t like D&D 4th Edition”

  1. I'm pretty disappointed with this review. For someone who can come up with good and fairly objective reviews, this is sounded more like a rant and quite a lot of generalizations have seem to be made about 4E which sounds like it could be overcome if he had played a few session (with someone who can make use of the rules pretty well).

    Still, it's too early to judge. There's part 2.

    <abbr><abbr>Questing GMs last blog post..Word of Wizards – Dragon 372 Art Gallery</abbr></abbr>

  2. What annonyed me a bit was that Mr. Wiegel couldn't even name the classes correctly. It seems he is so infuriated that he didn't even read the books thoroughly. And that's pretty disappointing because his other reviews are usually spot on.

  3. @ Stargazer: 'In a way'? LOL

    He just rants incoherently about something without knowing much about the topic, and goes off on useless tangents. At least he should have read through the books again before doing this 'review'. 😉

  4. Wow.

    He does make one good point though, that of 4e D&D pigeon-holing both the class archetypes and campaign expectations. I don't think either are necessarily a bad thing though, and just put into words how D&D is "usually" played. If you want to play a plane-spanning campaign at first level go right ahead and just re-tool some of the monsters.

    When it comes to the classes being pigeon-holed into certain roles, that's just the nature of having a class-based game system and little different from how D&D through the Editions. 4e lacks 3e's flexibility in this regard simply because it lacks the wealth of supplements that 3e has garnered over the years. I'd have liked the roles in 4e to be less strict than they are though. I'd love to be able to build a decent lightly-armoured spear-wielding Fighter, for example.

    Me, I expected to be savage and hate 4e D&D in much the same way. But I don't, I'm pleasantly surprised by it.

    <abbr><abbr>greywulfs last blog post..Villain du Jour: Identity</abbr></abbr>

  5. @greywulf: I agree that 3E's flexibility comes from the fact that we have hundreds of classes, class variants et cetera. D&D 4E will also feel much more flexible when the PHB2 will be released.

    My main problem with Kurt's review is that it's not a review, it's a rant. And I don't think the second part of the "review" will change that.

  6. @ Stargazer: I know, I just found it incredibly funny for some reason. ^^

    Und BTW – Daumen hoch zu deinem Blog und mach weiter so. 😉

  7. Dungons and Dragons 4th Edition doesn't pigeonhole you unless you let it. If you want to be exploring the multiverse by the 6th level, then you can do that (unless your DM doesn't want you to). Nothing in the book explicitly says "okay, you can not do anything else during these levels but_______". This could hardly be considered a review – it's more like a rant.

    <abbr><abbr>Aarons last blog post..It’s Coming…</abbr></abbr>

Leave a Reply