Rules Changes Significant?

First off, I'm pretty excited for the new edition. Almost everything I've read on the blogs, seen with the artwork (covers aside), and read about seems like all moves in the right direction. The mechanics seem to be trimming fat in the right areas and bulking the game out in others.

One thing that I am getting out of the designer blogs and the playtests is that it seems like the changes to combat and such seem VERY significant. So much so that I have the feeling that running a combat for the first time and seeing a party in action will be a lot different then what we are used to.

At the heart it will still be the same great game, but this isn't your daddy's D&D. I don't think this is a bad thing, but I was curious if everyone else felt the same way.

That's funny, I was thinking the changes are fairly insignificant, in fact I thought that's what your post would be about from the title.

We still have mostly the same old classes, mostly the same old races, levels, damage rolls, hit points, bleeding to death, armour class, criticals, charges, flanking, surprise rounds, initiative, standard actions, move actions, free actions, immediate actions, the battle grid, 5ft. squares, Vancian magic (in the sense of spells per time period rather than a mana pool) and lots of the same old monsters - rainbow dragons, beholders, goblins, worgs (still with trip).

It's pretty much 3e with Bo9S, MMV and Complete Mage.

It's still d20, much less of a change than 2e->3e. I'd have liked to see more changes. I'm very happy with what we have but I'd have liked it even more if they'd gone further.

Doug McCrae said:

I'd have liked to see more changes. I'm very happy with what we have but I'd have liked it even more if they'd gone further.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Now is *definitely* not the time for timidity or half-measures.

Doug McCrae said:

That's funny, I was thinking the changes are fairly insignificant, in fact I thought that's what your post would be about from the title.

Click to expand...

Well I never played with Bo9S and Complete Mage so that may explain it. Still doesn't seem to be reminiscent of 3e to me. With stuff like second wind, characters inciting an automatic attack, balance being based on per encounter, critical hits healing characters, each of the classes have a distinct role, and all of the customization options and the wealth of abilities that a party can bring to the table, I think the game will play fairly differently.

The balance per encounter thing is probably going to be the biggest change. And maybe character roles, that could really alter player perception of their role within the party, and that imo is the single most important factor in terms of how a player experiences the game.

The rest is pretty minor, imo, though all the cool new powers and options and stuff will be exciting.

Doug McCrae said:

The balance per encounter thing is probably going to be the biggest change. And maybe character roles, that could really alter player perception of their role within the party, and that imo is the single most important factor in terms of how a player experiences the game.

The rest is pretty minor, imo, though all the cool new powers and options and stuff will be exciting.

Click to expand...

Character roles are a formalization of the way the game has worked since I first started playing, so other than there being an explicit design goal of slotting certain classes into certain roles and making sure all classes are good at their designated role, I don't see that being an earthshaking change.

The changes to monster and encounter design balance will make 4e feel less than 3e, I think, given the things Mike Mearls has said in various places. A higher bad guy to PC ratio, if nothing else. That hearkens back to earlier editions, though, so it will probably feel kind of familiar to those of us who started before 3e.

But per encounter balance changes the game fundamentally in ways that 2e -> 3e didn't do. I expect that to be the most cited reason people refuse to upgrade and stick with 3.5e. That is a pretty radical change. Some of us have been suggesting something like it for the last 20 years or so (people have been asking to get rid of "Vancian Magic" for as long as I've been playing the game, for example), but it's still a radical change.

Personally, I'm glad to see that they're trying out new rules systems in places like Book of 9 Swords instead of making a big "reveal" in the new edition -- that's how it SHOULD work. The game should grow a bit organically over the years, and then get pruned back to the systems that work. I know that's not what has happened with any edition shift prior to this one, but it really is how it should work.

JVisgaitis said:

At the heart it will still be the same great game, but this isn't your daddy's D&D. I don't think this is a bad thing, but I was curious if everyone else felt the same way.

Click to expand...

Not a bad thing at all.

But then, I'm playing in a Forgotten Realms campaign whose ruleset is Iron Heroes based with Bo9S / Magic of Incarnum add-ons .... so, there's a 50/50 chance the DM could switch to running 4e behind the scenes with none of us PC's the wiser ...

I think it will be a very small change compared with change from 2e to 3e.
Most of us did it, most of us were able to adapt, most of us loved 3e, so I guess we will be able to do it again and adopt 4e

Horacio said:

I think it will be a very small change compared with change from 2e to 3e.

Click to expand...

"If I showed you phantom steed, for example, the first three lines of the rules text would each require explanation...and those explanations would lead to reasonable questions on your part...and those answers would lead us elsewhere, and...well, you get the idea."

After a quote like this in David Noonan's blog, how can anyone think that the changes aren't very significant?

I don't know how anyone who has kept up at all with the 4e news can think the changes aren't going to be signifigant. WotC has flat out said the changes ARE major.