D&D 4E 4e and My Setting: Can You Convince Me To Convert?

[Khuxan]

And will they be as mechanically fleshed-out as the ones in the PH?

They will be adequate for your needs.

So if I want monsters to have uses outside of combat, I need to do all the work? As if I didn't have enough on my plate already. Yes, I realize that the majority of the fluff in 3.5 was ignored (hell, I ignored it a good deal of the time), but it was useful as a springboard for my own ideas.

No, if you want monsters to have uses outside of combat, all the work is done for you. "Once every 99 years, a pit fiend can grant a mortal's wish". That's no different to 3.5's "Once every year, a pit fiend can grant a mortal's wish".

 

[Generico]

So if I want monsters to have uses outside of combat, I need to do all the work? As if I didn't have enough on my plate already. Yes, I realize that the majority of the fluff in 3.5 was ignored (hell, I ignored it a good deal of the time), but it was useful as a springboard for my own ideas.

I'm not sure what work you're referring to. If I want my goblins to climb trees outside of combat, they climb trees. If I want them to perform rituals that summon demons, they summon demons. There are no numbers involved in that, so I'm not sure where this alleged "work" is located.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

"Per-encounter" abilities. From a design standpoint, I love the idea; from a world-building standpoint, I can't stand it. I know there are ways to rationalize them, but I don't like any of the solutions I've come across.

What's wrong with the actual explanation?

"It takes a few minutes of study/rest/prayer to use this ability again."

 

[ObsidianCrane]

So if I want monsters to have uses outside of combat, I need to do all the work? As if I didn't have enough on my plate already. Yes, I realize that the majority of the fluff in 3.5 was ignored (hell, I ignored it a good deal of the time), but it was useful as a springboard for my own ideas.

What do you do when you want an NPC for use outside of combat?

Now the monsters don't have anything restricting you except their fluff when you want them to be able to do a certain thing. So now they are an NPC whose combat abilities are defined for you, and who you get to define the non-combat abilities for just like you are doing now.

That's half the work for making NPCs done for you.

 

[Tewligan]

Want convincing? Wait for the core rules to come out, and see if they mesh with you.

This makes sense. None of us know what the rules are like - how are we supposed to know if they'll work with your campaign?

 

[zacharythefirst]

This makes sense. None of us know what the rules are like - how are we supposed to know if they'll work with your campaign?

Absolutely. And really, with a world with so many allowed races and classes as your sandbox seems to have, I really think waiting to see if 4e clicks with you is a good bet--although really, taking into consideration how difficult or easy conversion would be is also . Would that conversion ruin the feel of your game, or prove too difficult? These are questions you might have an inkling on now, but can't be answered with any certainty until perhaps a bit further into all this.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

[*] Restriction on rings. In my mind, this is a ridiculous restriction; there is a solution that some other poster made that I really like (if I can find the post, I'll link it), but the "RAW" seems indicative of a general design philosophy that I don't like.


Anybody care to try to convince me?

It's worth noting, this isn't a restriction on 'rings' this is a restriction on the 'ring slot'. Lower level characters might be able to use rings, they just can't use rings and gloves at the same time. If you can accept the idea of slots, you can probably accept this idea.

In game, I'm assuming that once you hit the paragon levels you actually do gain substantive power in terms of the basic metaphysics of the game world. You've gained enough significance that Fate knows you by reputation.



As for convincing you:

It sounds like you have a very complicated system in place. 4E might suit that system better, but it's also probably going to be a lot simpler to begin with than the system you've developed.

I think you might try running a 4E adventure in which you slowly start introducing the foundations of your world. That way you'll have a better idea of what is or is not compatible.

 

[Thaniel]

[*] Restriction on rings. In my mind, this is a ridiculous restriction; there is a solution that some other poster made that I really like (if I can find the post, I'll link it), but the "RAW" seems indicative of a general design philosophy that I don't like.

I still don't see the problem with this. What if Rings have magic tied to abilities that are not in play until 11th level? That would make them useless before that, would it not? "No rings before level 11" doesn't mean that you can't physically wear the ring. It just means it grants you no benefit.

Granted, this hasn't been enumerated, but I'm willing to give the designers some benefit of the doubt. I am shocked by how many people don't give them that courtesy.

 

[Incenjucar]

Until we know what rings do we really have no grounds to judge the restriction. It's absurd to do so.

 

[pukunui]

Cons

• Monsters have only combat-relevant abilities. Since I don't use monsters often, this is alright, but if I ever decide to change that, I want the creatures in the world to be a little more dynamic than simply there to be killed by the PCs.

• See here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/dnd_flashmovies/cp_social.html
  
  To sum up, social encounters are going to have actual mechanics - but they won't be giving us any details until the game actually releases because the mechanics are still in development and are "contentious". Furthermore, they have stated that even fighters and other combat-oriented creatures/classes will have non-combat abilities. This fits with their fundamental design tenet that everyone should always have something interesting to do.
  
  

  [*] Halflings changed, gnomes gone. While the fluff on the halflings can be changed (and most definitely will be), the removal of gnomes hurts.

  As others have pointed out, gnomes will be in the first Monster Manual. They will be fleshed out enough that you will be able to use them as a PC race. Same goes for goblins and the like, I believe. They probably just won't have as many racial feats or as much background fluff as the races in the PHB. A proper PC gnome will probably appear in the PHB2.
  
  

  [*] Restriction on class design space. With the four roles, I think it will be difficult for any given power source to have more than four classes; while that should be enough, it sometimes just isn't. I like to tinker with the system, so this restriction on design space somewhat irks me. I haven't heard or read anything to contradict this point, but I'll be pleased if there is.

  I actually view the clarification of roles in the opposite way. I think it frees you up to be more creative because it gives you more structure. As others have pointed out, the roles have always been there. And Wizards has already said multiple times that some classes will have "bleed" across roles (like the paladin will probably be a mix of defender and leader).
  
  

  [*] Restriction on rings. In my mind, this is a ridiculous restriction; there is a solution that some other poster made that I really like (if I can find the post, I'll link it), but the "RAW" seems indicative of a general design philosophy that I don't like.

  I don't have a problem with this. There's probably going to be fluff to explain it. Low-level character simply won't have the "personal power" to activate a ring or something.
  
  

  [*] "Per-encounter" abilities. From a design standpoint, I love the idea; from a world-building standpoint, I can't stand it. I know there are ways to rationalize them, but I don't like any of the solutions I've come across. If appropriate fluff can be made to explain it, I'm definitely down with it, but at the moment, not so much.

They are abilities that you either can't use against a certain foe more than once because the element of surprise is lost after the first time or else they are things that involve a certain amount of "personal power" so that you have to "catch your breath" before you can do it again.

Anybody care to try to convince me?

I've given it my best shot but as others have said, the only person who can really convince you is you, and you shouldn't really even try until you have the actual rules in front of you.