D&D 4E What don't you like about 4E so far? (Not a rant)

[Crazy Jerome]

My biggest reservation is the Digital Initiative. It may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if it isn't a complete waste of time, it will be the first electronice anything from the owner of D&D that wasn't. (I'm not including certain classic video games that were done by third parties, though some of them were real stinkers as well.) We will see what we will see.

Other than that, too early to say. So far, I'm not seeing any really bold change--like how far they went with feats and skills in 3E. There are a lot of changes that appear to be bold, but are really refinements. Don't get me wrong; I've got nothing against refinements. I think they should SWSEify the D&D skills, for example. But where is the big addition to the game that adds a whole other dimension of play? I'm not seeing it...yet.

 

[Celebrim]

- Restrictions; While 3.x motto was "Options, not restrictions", it seems to me like 4E is going to be something more like "We decided this isn't fun for you, so you can't have it".

QFT.

The rest of the post I mostly agree with as well, but I think it could have been said in a less inflammatory way.

 

[mhensley]

By the by Monte Cook reports on the positive effects of this, having house-ruled something similar into his latest campaign.

I'm not saying that I hate this as most other games (GURPS, Savage Worlds, etc) have more effective starting characters - I'm just worried about what this will do to the power curve of D&D. That's what the sweet spot means to mean: playing a hero, not a super-hero. I want to play Conan, not Thor.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

Basically, three things: First, the DDI, which I think is a bit underwhelming (we already have places we can go to to play by mail, by post, by IRC channel, or whatever) and a bit of a nickel-and-dime thing. Give me three packages (basic, advanced and prime) and we're golden, but not a different fee for every separate button on their UI.

Second, the inclusion of Tieflings on the PHB with the simultaneous exclusion of the Aasimar. One race is diminished without the other.

Third, the relaxing of alignment restrictions on the Paladin. A Paladin is a champion of all that is good and right, not merely some deity's strongarm (that role is the Cleric's, anyway).

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not saying that I hate this as most other games (GURPS, Savage Worlds, etc) have more effective starting characters - I'm just worried about what this will do to the power curve of D&D.

I'm slightly less worried about the power curve (yet) than I am about what this means concerning the difficulty of stating out NPC's in a consistant fashion. What do average inhabitants of my world now look like? It seems like its a move back towards the 1st edition 'NPCs are monsters, not characters' view of the world. While I'm normally 'old skool' there are things I didn't like about 1st (or I'd still be playing it) and that was one of them.

Are 1st level Player classed individuals going to be the equivalent of 3rd or 4th level NPCs/Monsters? Isn't that basically the same as starting out the PC's as 3rd or 4th level characters but just hiding the fact amongst the terminology (for example by doing away with HD for NPCs)? Am I going to have NPCs that are 1/4 level, 1/3 level, and 1/2 level individuals? Conceptually, did the PC's go through being 1/4, 1/3, and 1/2 level characters or were they 'born' first level characters? What does a 1/3rd level Wizard look like?

 

[Celebrim]

Second, the inclusion of Tieflings on the PHB with the simultaneous exclusion of the Aasimar. One race is diminished without the other.

I don't know about whether one race is diminished without the other, but the fact that they thought 'clearly' players would rather play a fiend tainted race than an uplifted one tells me alot about the age group that they are targeting in 4e.

Third, the relaxing of alignment restrictions on the Paladin. A Paladin is a champion of all that is good and right, not merely some deity's strongarm (that role is the Cleric's, anyway).

I personally think that each alignment can have a champion of all that it is without diminishing the Paladin, but I doubt you can get there from the Paladin class itself. You can get there from something like BotR's 'Holy Warrior', but I doubt that they've made such a radical change or we would be hearing leaks about 'Champions' or some similarly named core class.

 

[F4NBOY]

By the by Monte Cook reports on the positive effects of this, having house-ruled something similar into his latest campaign.

Monte Cook's house rules are making the game easier and for kids. Changes for the sake of changes ha!

Now seriously, great to know that 4E is on the right path.

I almost feel the pain for the people that are not liking any of the changes. It's gotta be a lot of suffering. I felt a similar frustration and suffering during the 2E Era. I think now is the time I can fully enjoy the game. I'm probably just a munchkin mmorpger kid though...

 

[Ahrimon]

A game is a game for me. So while I'm dissapointed I'll have to wait until the books come out, my biggest, by far the most disturbing problem is...

I just moved and don't have a group.

 

[Irda Ranger]

This list is far shorter than my list of "likes", but there are a few things:

1. Deliberately leaving classic monsters out of MM1. That's a kick in the shins.
2. Pretty much everything D&DI:
* Besides WotC's horrible track record, it's expensive and looks low-tech by any standard.
* Unbundle Dragon, Dungeon and Game-Table please. I have no use for Dragon and little for Dungeon.
* No Mac/Linux support.
3. Keeping Armor-as-AC, instead of Armor-as-DR. That's a sacred cow that can go.
4. Druid uncertainty (PHB2? Complete book? Alt-Cleric? What's going on?)
5. The wizard tradition names. Dear lord they suck.
6. The marketing department's influence. From the 'blogs' to all the other stuff, it's obvious this has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb. It doesn't feel like a genuine conversation with the community; just a bunch of press releases. I'd much rather that they were honest and just said "Look, we're in playtesting. Not much to disclose right now. Talk to you in a month or so." and left it at that. I'd prefer real disclosure even more, but since they've decided to say nothing, I wish they'd shut up about saying nothing.
6.a. The "we're holding back surprises for launch day" mentality. Why? What is the point of that? Why all the secrecy? Are you afraid Necromancy Games or Green Ronin will steal your ideas and publish an alt-4e before May and you'll lose sales? Don't they already have the playtest rules anyway so they can release 4e materials from the get-go?

A few comments:
Re: Faster Advancement: They were very clear that you can advance PC's as quickly or as slowly as you want, so no one should be complaining about this. Too fast? Multiply all awards by 1/2. Done.

Re: Monsters as Different: I really think this is 'fear of change' talking. The fact is that GM's have far too many monsters to stat out to give them all the full "PC treatment." This is a reality for anyone who holds down a day job. I'm very glad the rules in 4e will recognize this.

 

[megamania]

Getting rid of Dragon and Dungeon FORCING one to subscribe to their new website which I can not load without taking a twenty minute break. (I have an extremely poor hook up....snail mail is faster and after two months I have major withdraw symtoms from the magazines)