What is your top question/concern about 4th edition?

[WayneLigon]

Everything they've told us leads me to believe they'll just be increasing the refresh rate of some abilities from X slots a day/day to 'per encounter' which is once every couple of minutes.
Vancian is staying.

Then that's not a Vancian system, not purely. The 'eight hours of sleep, refresh/prepare/memorize everything' is the Vancian system, not the spell slots. Spell slots are just another way of totaling how much magic you have available to you. Once you do away with the refresh rate, you could call those 'spell points' or whatever and have the same thing.

 

[Festivus]

I want to know how this will save me time at the game table, particularly when you get into higher level stuff (13+). I have found my games tend to really drag down there to the point where you are lucky to get one combat completed in a 4 hour game session.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Is there really enough time to do sufficient playtesting, consider the feedback and make the edits to publish books in May, June and July that won't need a major errata right away?

Based solely on the blogs, playtest reports and other posted information on D&D Insider, my gut keeps telling me they have not allowed sufficient time to get it all done and quality will suffer for it. I would love to see a work breakdown structure for the first three projects (PHB, DMG, and MM) in this program (4e).

 

[PhantomNarrator]

I want to know what Hasbro will do when 4ed. turns out to be a catastrophic sales failure?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I want to know what Hasbro will do when 4ed. turns out to be a catastrophic sales failure?

Wow. That is so funny. I cannot stop laughing at your advanced humor skills.
Do you have a humor newsletter I can sign up for.

 

[cjyoung1]

Will the ability scores be grouped in their proper order:
STR,
INT,
WIS,
DEX,
CON,
CHA?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Biggest worry is encapsulated in this train of thought: "PCs are heroes from the beginning. So they get triple HP at 1st level." Heroes are defined by their choices and their courage, not their powers.

Rephrase it as "PCs are superior to everybody else around them from the beginning" and it's a different feel, one that might lend itself to certain campaign assumptions. How much better are they? Are the PCs aware of how superior they are? What might the reasons be for this? Will they walk over the city guard knowing that Ordinary People just can't stop them? It offers interesting possibilities...

 

[Gundark]

I'm concerned about how fast itis to stat up npcs. We've been promised that it'll be faster. But how fast? Now I realize it's not going to be Savage Worlds fast, but it hopefully will be tons better than 3.5 currently is. Spell casters at high level are particular time comsumers stat wise.

 

[sckeener]

My second biggest concern is the statement, from "Book of Nine Swords", that "this isn't your parents' D&D" (or something to that effect). My concern is that the new edition won't feel like my D&D... and if it doesn't, then it really doesn't matter to me how successful it is, how many new players it draws in, or anything else - if it doesn't feel right to me then it's of little to no use to me.

In a way I agree...but I'm not worried.

I was happy when Vampire got more girls into role playing.

I'll be happy with more gamers period. I can always play my older editions, but I need more players to even have a chance to convert them.

So I'll be happy if they just increase the player base with this edition....that is my main issue...

as far as specifics...I'd be happier with a shade of gray system of alignment...I'm fine with allegiances, but I'd prefer something even less...

and I'd like to see the paladin given the boot...or becoming more like the knight...and less the holier than though warrior...

 

[Mercule]

#1: How will resource management work? I'm extremely skeptical of the per encounter mechanic. I don't care for it in ToB and I can't see it being particularly appropriate to combat maneuvers and it's only marginally better for magic. I've seen the seeds of good ideas (mostly from other ENWorlders, not WotC), so I remain open to seeing what they come up with.

#2: The Ranger Actually, I've pretty well written this one off. The ranger is a warrior with an strong survivalist/outdoorsy bent. He isn't a rogue that's good in the woods. He isn't a slightly more physical, less magical druid. The ranger archetype, IMO, has more in common with the barbarian than with the rogue, and they aren't much closer to a druid than to a sorcerer. At this point, though, I think the definition of what "ranger" means is so diluted with all the different editions that it's a meaningless word. I'm hoping that WotC drops the term and calls the 4E ranger a "scout".

#3: Will this still be "D&D"? 25+ levels of spells. Spell adder items. Martial abilities similar to spells. Power sources. Combat roles. Per encounter abilities. Three hit dice at first level. That's a lot of change. All I want is a system that lets me play the kinds of games I played with 1E, just more smoothly, easier, and higher definition (i.e. rogues have skills rather than set abilities, multiclassing works better, swashbucklers are workable, etc.). I don't want Exalted, Earthdawn, Legend of the Five Rings, or any other fantasy game.

#4: Ease of play WotC says they are working on reducing prep time and in-game delays caused by complex and/or idiosyncratic rules. I hope this is true. I don't have the time I used to.