D&D 4E What changes aren't being made in 4E that you think should be

[Jayouzts]

My impression of everything I have heard thus far about 4E is that the changes that are being made are either fixing things that are not broken or are fixing things that could be easily remedied with houserules from Unearthed Arcana.

But my biggest concern is that they are not fixing what I perceive to be the biggest problem with 3E: too many classes.

I am not talking about too many prestige classes - this problem is being addressed by the epic and paragon paths (though I am skeptical that these may just be prestige classes with a different name). I am talking about too many standard classes.

The plethora of Complete ____ Books, PHII, and Campaign Background supplements have left so many classes I can't keep up with them all. I am talking about things like the Hexblade, Warmage, Warlock, Marshall, Scout and Favoured Soul. Unless these classes are needed to help flesh out the flavor of the campaign, IMHO that they add nothing to the game that could not have been added by a feat or a class variant. (In many cases the classes strike me as imbalanced)

Unfortunately, this is definitely not going to change. The Warlock and Warlord are in. The Wizard is basically becoming an Evoker, which means we will need new classes to serve as Transmuters, Conjurers, and Enchanters. They promised the Monk and Bard will return in subsequent books - no doubt these books will include all of the other classes.

I know what you are thinking "If you don't like the Warlock do not allow it in your game". All well and good. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing sub-culture of 3.x players that believe that if you do not allow any and all races and classes in any book published by WOTC your game is substandard somehow. WOTC, while perhaps not to blame for this mentality, certainly has no interest in discouraging it because it helps sell books.

I do not see this trend changing in 4E. If it does not, 4E will be no better than 3E for me and, in which case, I will not buy it. Period. Even if it means giving up RPG's altogether.

I would have preferred the True20 approach where you have 3 classes - expert, warrior, and adept (spellcaster). These broad class types could be developed to fit any archetype you wish.

Are there is there any changes that you would like to see in 4E you know aren't coming, or that you have not heard anything about?

 

[kennew142]

I am one of those players and GMs who likes a large number of base classes. It makes it much easier to find a class that does exactly what you want it to do. There are some classes we never used in 3.5 (e.g. hexblade, warmage, shugenja, wu jen, samurai), some we wanted to, but never had a chance (e.g. beguiler, favored soul) and others that we made much use of (e.g. duskblade, warlock).

 

[Szatany]

Who's forcing you to use all that extra material? Are you complaining that there are too many car types in the world as well?

 

[Kunimatyu]

The thing I don't like is the paragon paths -- unless they're way simpler than PrC, I feel that it's not a lot of complexity for a small payoff.

 

[Mort]

My impression of everything I have heard thus far about 4E is that the changes that are being made are either fixing things that are not broken or are fixing things that could be easily remedied with houserules from Unearthed Arcana.

Funny, many if not most of the fixes I've seen have address serious problems with 3x, ymmv.
Regardles, just a thought, starting a post in this somewhat inflamatory mannor isn't going to get the best of responses.

But my biggest concern is that they are not fixing what I perceive to be the biggest problem with 3E: too many classes.


I am not talking about too many prestige classes - this problem is being addressed by the epic and paragon paths (though I am skeptical that these may just be prestige classes with a different name). I am talking about too many standard classes.

The plethora of Complete ____ Books, PHII, and Campaign Background supplements have left so many classes I can't keep up with them all. I am talking about things like the Hexblade, Warmage, Warlock, Marshall, Scout and Favoured Soul. Unless these classes are needed to help flesh out the flavor of the campaign, IMHO that they add nothing to the game that could not have been added by a feat or a class variant. (In many cases the classes strike me as imbalanced)

Unfortunately, this is definitely not going to change. The Warlock and Warlord are in. The Wizard is basically becoming an Evoker, which means we will need new classes to serve as Transmuters, Conjurers, and Enchanters. They promised the Monk and Bard will return in subsequent books - no doubt these books will include all of the other classes.

I know what you are thinking "If you don't like the Warlock do not allow it in your game". All well and good. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing sub-culture of 3.x players that believe that if you do not allow any and all races and classes in any book published by WOTC your game is substandard somehow. WOTC, while perhaps not to blame for this mentality, certainly has no interest in discouraging it because it helps sell books.
...

I would have preferred the True20 approach where you have 3 classes - expert, warrior, and adept (spellcaster). These broad class types could be developed to fit any archetype you wish.

Are there is there any changes that you would like to see in 4E you know aren't coming, or that you have not heard anything about?

Who cares if some guy on a message board thinks your game is substandard because you don't allow certain classes, I've never gamed with anyone who was that radical about it. Besides WoTC is hitting the reset button on classes - so that addresses your point right there.
D&D is a class system and changing it to a True20 approach would anger many more people than it drew in - making it a bad decision on WoTC's part.

I do not see this trend changing in 4E. If it does not, 4E will be no better than 3E for me and, in which case, I will not buy it. Period. Even if it means giving up RPG's altogether.

If you actually like the system, what do you care if there are "too many classes" - just use the ones you like. And this whole thing about "giving up RPG's altogether" - If you like to game - isn't it better to find a game that works for you than to give up on gaming entirely because of one aspect of one game?

 

[Cadfan]

1: I rather like multiple classes.

2: No one is forcing you to use everything. If your players are complaining, that's between you and them- its foolish of a DM to whine to others and claim his players are spoiled if they don't like the game he's trying to run. Players aren't obliged to enjoy your work.

3: That being said, I wouldn't mind if the difference between "ability score" and "ability score bonus" were removed. I didn't expect it to happen, but I wouldn't have minded.

4: I also wouldn't have minded if druid were designed to pick an animal to shift into, and then focus on that one animal. Instead of having general druids, I'd prefer if there were bear druids, wolf druids, cat druids, etc. You know, much like the way we've got wizard disciplines. Maybe I'll get my wish in part, at least. Who knows?

 

[mtbOgre]

A continually expanding universe of classes and class features is what makes WoTC fat and happy. If WoTC didn't introduce the expected 3-5 new classes and 4-8 new prestige classes per book then how would they ever sell new books? There are only so many spell books and magic item books you can publish, after you've created 20 ways to have a player roll a bunch of six sided dice will they really buy a book with 10 more ways? Once you've published the everflowing bidet it's likely that you aren't going to sell many more magic item books.

Even classic AD&D found that they needed to add classes to sell more books. Introducing a new edition will fend off the new class creep for a while as Wizards fills out the base classes but WOTC needs to publish books to continue making money and the books that people want have new classes and prestige classes in them.

 

[Jayouzts]

Funny, many if not most of the fixes I've seen have address serious problems with 3x, ymmv.
Regardles, just a thought, starting a post in this somewhat inflamatory mannor isn't going to get the best of responses.
QUOTE]

Why is expressing a misgiving about 4E inflammatory?

 

[Greg K]

I know what you are thinking "If you don't like the Warlock do not allow it in your game". All well and good. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing sub-culture of 3.x players that believe that if you do not allow any and all races and classes in any book published by WOTC your game is substandard somehow. WOTC, while perhaps not to blame for this mentality, certainly has no interest in discouraging it because it helps sell books.?

So, don't play with them. Personally, with the exception of two or three of the new WOTC base classes, none of them would ever see light of day in a game I ran. I tend to use a fewthird party classes and several class variants to fill what I consider missing archetypes. If a player came to play with our group and had problems with a particular class not being allowed, they would be politely shown the door.

 

[Wormwood]

Feels a little premature, but here goes:

1. Looks like there are still too many skills.
2. Half elves? Really?
3. Not a fan of some of the names (Tieflings seem way cooler than their silly legacy name suggests, for example)
4. Looks like we still have named bonuses. That way lies madness.