D&D 4E First Impressions of 4E / Predictions on 5E

[ShadowDenizen]

I'm fascinated by the OP. (And welcome back to the hobby, Pozeltum!)

To a degree, aren't people like Pozeltum the exact target that WotC seems to want to market to? Someone who is either A) new to the game or B) coming back after a hiatus to the "newness" of 4E?

And yet his overall feelings seem decidedly negative.

 

[Spell]

Feeling to play in a living, breathing world without any artificial barriers because of rules.
This sort of immersion will be much harder to achieve in 4E than in 3E (see rings only working for specific levels, everything only made for combat...)

then you should have quit playing 3e a long time ago... in fact, i doubt you would have ever switched to 2e!

 

[Steely Dan]

1.) Oh, I see. Everything which goes against your opinion is insulting...

2.) Those are my impressions of 4E and I am not alone with them. If you don't agree with them, fine. But don't accuse me of spreading lies especially when you don't even try to understand my arguments.

1.) Not at all.

2.) But they aren't arguments, you are stating false information about 4th Ed – please stop.

At least the other people who have issues with 4th Ed are actually talking about aspects of 4th Ed, not just hearsay and wild conjecture as you are , so once again please stop spreading lies, and do your homework on what actually is or isn't in 4th Ed.

Take her easy,



P.S. Sorry, Plain Sailing – I just saw your post above – will do.

 

[Spell]

To a degree, aren't people like Pozeltum the exact target that WotC seems to want to market to? Someone who is either A) new to the game or B) coming back after a hiatus to the "newness" of 4E?

And yet his overall feelings seem decidedly negative.

if i can throw my two pences in, i will tell you why *my* perspective of the new edition is more and more negative the more i read about it.
pretty much the only thing i care about the new edition is:

1. smoother, less tactical combat, as independent as possible from miniatures.
2. more freedom to customize the system by dropping whatever rule i don't like, without having to get a headache to understand the extension of a give change over many integrated subsytem (please notice that this is not necessarily a call for a return to "illogical" subsystem a la 2e).
3. a system that doesn't require me to spend hours to convert old adventures that i collected in my 16 years of gaming, hailing from the days od BECM, 1e, and 2e.
4. (less important) a "generic" ruleset that can make me run adventures in dark sun, "vanilla" medieval with magic, homebrw oddities that might mix literary sources with manga, ravenloft (black box, "hardcore" gothic fantasy).

do i get 1? yes and no. the combat, apparently will be smoother BUT the miniatures will still be there (meaning that it will be tactical, rather than freeform/ narrative). ok, no too big a deal. i can house rule that out, maybe.

do i get 2? mmmh... nothing has been said for sure. on one hand, they want the job for the DM to be easier. which could mean more customization. on the other, i opened the races and classes book at my FLGS, and what do i read? that the 3e ruleset was the greatest thing ever. all of the sudden, it seems that "making the job easier" will be "we will take the toy out of your hand. you can watch us play with it, though".

3? by all accounts, not even 3e books will be more or less directly protable in the new edition.

4? again, this remains to be seen. yes, there are WoW elements, and the fluff is there... but unless these elements don't shape the ruleset too heavily in one specific direction, i don't mind. (actually, i salute the return of descriptive and evocative in D&D core books!)

i have stopped roleplaying more or less because of 3e, among other external factors. even when i think of starting a campaign today, or to run a one shot for my friends should we have the time, i NEVER consider 3e.

the people designing 4e have taken part to the big disappointment (for me) that was 3e.

i see some parallels between what happens with the computer program that was being developed for 3e (they promised the moon, and then we got e-tools months and months later the expected date) and the way the magazines are being handled online.

i see the same tone of "yeah, but you don't know the whole picture, so why are you freaking out" from some wotc people. (yes, they are right. we don't know everything. but if they reveal rule A and this freaks people out, they should reveal more, or just explain things).

so, 4e might be FANTASTIC. the best thing ever. i'm honestly hoping it will be. but there are many things that make me feel like it's one of those things that i'd better buy used from amazon 6-18 months after they come out. at least i would get a new printing and it would be cheaper.

 

[Spell]

I remember when it was obvious that 3E was going to be MTG, and we were able to see right through their denials.

yeah, me too.
i'm surprised nobody lynched you for saying that...

 

[Belphanior]

Its more like: The artificial barriers of 4E are worse and more numerous than in 3E.

I think it's far, far too early to make calls like that.

I don't have SAGA myself but how it was explained to me is that you can't spend skillpoints but your skills increase as you gain a level automatically, with the ability to get "trained" feats in certain skills (here I heard conflicting things as some people say that it is quite hard to get training in a non class skill in SAGA while others say that class skills in SAGA don't exist).

Correct so far...

That means that every fighter of equal level will be equally good in everything unless he is trained in it.

... but now you're wrong. I already said it earlier: ability modifiers and race.
On top of that the automatic skill levels are quite low. A 10th level fighter has +5 in Ride. Whoop-de-doo, that's the same as a 2nd level character in 3e.

I see it like this: in 4e characters will learn minor skills by watching other people do it. After seeing the rogue sneak away for dozens of times, you're bound to learn the rudimentary technique yourself. If the mage keeps boring you with arcane trivia, at some point you'll start to recognize magical runes. In this respect I find Saga/4e to be far more realistic than most other RPGs out there.

Yes, but it is much more concrete in 4E than in 3E. Tell me, what is the role of a fighter in 3E? i had the freedom to make a defender/tank or use charger build to make the fighter a striker. Even a Controller build with the spiked chain was possible.
Now in 4E this roles are spelled out and you can expect that the things a class can do is more limited to this role. Fighters are defenders, so most of their abilities will revolve around defending. It will be quite hard, either by rules or group pressure or a combination of them, to play a striker or controller fighter.

Please, now it's you who thinks in absolutes. The wizard will still have single-target damage spells (striker) and buffs to pass around to his buddies (leader). Just because he's a Controller doesn't mean he's incapable of anything else. The devs have stated so several times quite clearly. Being able to AoO-trip != you're a controller now.

And until I have a 4e PHB in my hands I'm not going to comment on what kind of fighter you can make. I don't know. And neither do you.

One magic item is still worse than no magic item.
Why is it necessary to limit rings that way? Why not simply suggest that rings are only suitable for adventures of paragon level or above? Why hardcode this limit into the rules?

Maybe rings are so powerful that a suggestion alone isn't enough to preserve a little balance. Or maybe rings only function when worn by someone with the potential to achieve a great destiny. Or whatever. I see here the potential for quasi-artifact level items that require sweeping tomb raids and daring thefts to obtain. This is a good thing, IMO.

I'm talking about monsters loosing out of combat abilities. In 3E having a demon in the area which has Animate Dead as at will ability could lead to a "automatic plot hook" by having the demon raise fallen creature and spread havoc. When I want to have this sort of adventure in 4E I will likely have to rule 0 that this demon can animate undead. Sure, houseruling is easy but I can always do that even if the demon does have spelled out out of combat abilities. It just means that I as DM have more work to do as I have to houserule everything so that it fits together.

Checking the SRD reveals one devil and no demons able to do what you describe - the Pit Fiend no less. If you can show me the 4e stats for demons and devils and show that there is not one single fiend out there capable of making undead, I'll concede this point.

I suspect you're just inventing a problem though.

That was intended as a response to "Next, please list the things you don't get in computer games (but wanted to get)".
So I don't want to say what 3E in my opinion did, but what my vision of a perfect game is.

You've taken my quote entirely out of context, so that it became the opposite of what I meant.
I actually said:
"Next, please list the things you don't get in computer games (but wanted to get), do still get in 3.x D&D, but can't get in 4e any longer."

If you respond to me, don't alter the things I say to better suit you. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. It makes me feel you're trying to use me as a strawman.

 

[Steely Dan]

It makes me feel you're trying to use me as a strawman.

Well it sure as hell beats the Wickerman!

 

[Derren]

... but now you're wrong. I already said it earlier: ability modifiers and race.

When the race and ability modifier are the only think which makes two characters different then I don't consider this a good thing.

On top of that the automatic skill levels are quite low. A 10th level fighter has +5 in Ride. Whoop-de-doo, that's the same as a 2nd level character in 3e.

How do you know how high skills will go in 4E?

I see it like this: in 4e characters will learn minor skills by watching other people do it. After seeing the rogue sneak away for dozens of times, you're bound to learn the rudimentary technique yourself. If the mage keeps boring you with arcane trivia, at some point you'll start to recognize magical runes. In this respect I find Saga/4e to be far more realistic than most other RPGs out there.

Too bad when your party doesn't include all classes.

Please, now it's you who thinks in absolutes. The wizard will still have single-target damage spells (striker) and buffs to pass around to his buddies (leader). Just because he's a Controller doesn't mean he's incapable of anything else. The devs have stated so several times quite clearly. Being able to AoO-trip != you're a controller now.

And until I have a 4e PHB in my hands I'm not going to comment on what kind of fighter you can make. I don't know. And neither do you.

Thats why I am talking about impressions.
And my impression is that in 4E the options a character has will be narrowed down depending on its role.

Maybe rings are so powerful that a suggestion alone isn't enough to preserve a little balance. Or maybe rings only function when worn by someone with the potential to achieve a great destiny. Or whatever. I see here the potential for quasi-artifact level items that require sweeping tomb raids and daring thefts to obtain. This is a good thing, IMO.

And now we have a huge balance problem, the exact thing WotC wanted to prevent with its new magic item system. A party with rings, if they are indeed so powerful, will be much stronger than a party without one.

Checking the SRD reveals one devil and no demons able to do what you describe - the Pit Fiend no less. If you can show me the 4e stats for demons and devils and show that there is not one single fiend out there capable of making undead, I'll concede this point.

I suspect you're just inventing a problem though.

You are free to look at all other monsters who have out of combat abilities too.
Just because a specific example only applies to one monster doesn't mean that there are other examples.

You've taken my quote entirely out of context, so that it became the opposite of what I meant.
I actually said:
"Next, please list the things you don't get in computer games (but wanted to get), do still get in 3.x D&D, but can't get in 4e any longer."

If you respond to me, don't alter the things I say to better suit you. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. It makes me feel you're trying to use me as a strawman.

And the answer would still be the same (again, you are talking in absolutes).
What do I want?
A game world which feels alive and not constrained by rules.
Can a PC game give me this?
No.
Do I have it in 3E?
To some extend yes. Certainly more than PC games.
Will I loose it in 4E?
Yes, or at least it will be harder to achieve in 4E then it was in 3E.

 

[TheSeer]

Its more like: The artificial barriers of 4E are worse and more numerous than in 3E.]

I don't have SAGA myself but how it was explained to me is that you can't spend skillpoints but your skills increase as you gain a level automatically, with the ability to get "trained" feats in certain skills (here I heard conflicting things as some people say that it is quite hard to get training in a non class skill in SAGA while others say that class skills in SAGA don't exist).

Just...wow. So, you accuse 4E of being like a system that you've never actually read, that you admit that you've heard conflicting stories about, and we are supposed to take that line of reasoning as being something solid and well-reasoned???

Why is it necessary to limit rings that way? Why not simply suggest that rings are only suitable for adventures of paragon level or above? Why hardcode this limit into the rules?

Cause if you just "suggest" it you get confusion, and you get complaints that instead of setting down a hard and fast rule 4E sucks because it isn't explicit...you know, things people complained about 3E.

I'm talking about monsters loosing out of combat abilities. In 3E having a demon in the area which has Animate Dead as at will ability could lead to a "automatic plot hook" by having the demon raise fallen creature and spread havoc. When I want to have this sort of adventure in 4E I will likely have to rule 0 that this demon can animate undead. Sure, houseruling is easy but I can always do that even if the demon does have spelled out out of combat abilities. It just means that I as DM have more work to do as I have to houserule everything so that it fits together.

Tools like the out of combat abilities of monsters or defined abilities of NPCs.
Or tools how to make two PCs distinct from each other by them having different abilities. While this will certainly be possible in 4E, because of roles and automatic skills the distinction will be less than what is doable now.

So where has WoTC said you can't houserule it now? I mean, if you want it to have that ability that they have it. If you don't want to work to have things the way they suit you, then don't. But don't complain to WoTC because your specific needs aren't being met. DMs have been houseruling things from the start of D&D, why do you think that shouldn't happen now?

 

[Belphanior]

When the race and ability modifier are the only think which makes two characters different then I don't consider this a good thing.

Oh come on now. Skills, feats, talents, race, alignment, spells, and good old fashioned roleplaying. There is so much out there to distuingishc characters. You're now arguing that characters are identical simply because their untrained skils be equally high, assuming equal ability scores and race. Can you honestly not see how ludicrous this is getting?

How do you know how high skills will go in 4E?

I was using your own example of the 10th level fighter with the +5 Ride skill. So the real question is: how do you?

Too bad when your party doesn't include all classes.

*sigh*
So you learn from bards' tales, your enemies, simple trial and error, NPCs you grouped with once or twice, or any of the other sources one can think of.

You say you prefer the living breathing world of 3e over 4e, which has no/less artificial rules barriers. So why do you prefer the fiddly class/cross-class system of 3e which inevitably led to fighters having almost identical skill sets?

Thats why I am talking about impressions.
And my impression is that in 4E the options a character has will be narrowed down depending on its role.

I don't like repeating myself. But I can see that I may have to here.
Your impressions have proven to be demonstrably false several times. By me and others. Scroll back up to find out how.

And now we have a huge balance problem, the exact thing WotC wanted to prevent with its new magic item system. A party with rings, if they are indeed so powerful, will be much stronger than a party without one.

Are you now using my speculation to make a new complaint against 4e? From just a guy on the internet? Your misgivings are starting to make sense...

You are free to look at all other monsters who have out of combat abilities too.

Since it's your complaint, the burden of proof lies with you actually. I'm not going to compare several monster books with stats we don't have yet and do your job for you.

And the answer would still be the same (again, you are talking in absolutes).
What do I want?
A game world which feels alive and not constrained by rules.
Can a PC game give me this?
No.
Do I have it in 3E?
To some extend yes. Certainly more than PC games.
Will I loose it in 4E?
Yes, or at least it will be harder to achieve in 4E then it was in 3E.

I'm with you right until the end. We've shown how 3e has quite some rules constraints too. But you brush them aside and claim 4e is worse.

I know, you base yourself on your impressions. Which we've proven to be false. If you'd at least say "I think 4e will be worse" instead of "4e will be worse" you'd find this place to be a lot less opposed to your opinions. It's worth considering.