D&D 4E 4E Liker - anything you worry about?

[Lanefan]

Large-scale concerns:

One thing I'm surprised nobody's mentioned yet:

***Loss of yet more mystery for the players; this time exemplified by putting magic items in the PH. Corollary here: that magic items will become boring.

Another thing hinted at earlier but not really brought forward:

***That there will be too much emphasis placed on "optimal" character building at the expense of character personality. (3e was guilty of this too)

And another that's been mentioned before:

***That too much realism is being sacrificed on the altar of streamlining "the game".

Lanefan

 

[hong]

Large-scale concerns:

One thing I'm surprised nobody's mentioned yet:

***Loss of yet more mystery for the players; this time exemplified by putting magic items in the PH. Corollary here: that magic items will become boring.

There is no reason for it to be mentioned, because it isn't true.

 

[Nightson]

Large-scale concerns:

One thing I'm surprised nobody's mentioned yet:

***Loss of yet more mystery for the players; this time exemplified by putting magic items in the PH. Corollary here: that magic items will become boring.

Your players have never read the DMG?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Fear: Too many tiny and very situational bonuses, marks, durations, recharges, 1 round cleric buffs, etc to keep track of in combat. At the same time, many special monster powers, like ability damage, removed because "they're annoying to keep track of." I'd rather keep track of a long term buff/debuff than these piddly 1 round buffs and racial auras I've been seeing. Maybe that's just me.

While I have other fears that if they turn out to be true will be worst than this, I think this annoys me the most.

It seems to run completely counter to what they say 4e's design philosophy is, yet it appears to exist through out the system.

 

[Ahglock]

Your players have never read the DMG?

My players who don't DM haven't. And they have no desire to as far as I can tell, its not like I don't allow it. Maybe I am miss-interpreting his post but I assume he meant by putting it in the PH it implies a different set of acquisition rights. When its in the DMG magic items seem more like the province of the DM who hopefully judiciously gives them out as appropriate for the campaign, when its in the PH it seems more like things that you are supposed to get that you should mod your character out with.

edit because my mind wandered and the sentence made no sense.

 

[Ahglock]

I started out as a liker with some doubts, my main doubt was with things like necromancer, druid, barbarian and illusionist classes coming out in later books would the core book contain what I would need for my group to make the character concepts they came up with. I wanted my players to be able to come up with a concept and have a good chance to make a close approximation of what they wanted out of the core rules, I didn't want them to have to look at the core rules and try to find a concept they could make out of them that they could accept.

I'm now a doubter with some hopes, so my main hopes are in the companion thread to this.

 

[ruleslawyer]

My major worry *was* that class powers all essentially did the same things with different flavor tacked on, but the DDXP PCs have allayed that one.

I too am concerned about too many fiddly bits and little modifiers. There are plenty of things I don't have the need for (dragonborn and tiefling PCs, an implied setting, etc.), but I can skip over those, and besides, they're dislikes, not fears.

On the fence about 1-1-1 diagonals, and we haven't tried it in gameplay. I'd like to switch to a free-form table and tape measurement anyway, but am worried it'll be too complex.

Would be concerned about static defenses instead of saves, but since I use Players Roll All the Dice in Iron Heroes, I'm sure I can use it in 4e.

Really wished they'd gone with defense/DR instead of AC, but I understand why it's too complicated. Am worried about potential AC-through-the-roof builds, though, since I don't see anything that would prevent all these effects (mirror image, etc.) from being used to generate an AC-monster.

Concerned about grappling mechanics, as I'd like PCs to be able to do cool 4tuitous things in grapples, and I'm unsure whether there will be the feats or powers to do so or just grab-pin-crush like in SWSE.

Concerned about boring monsters. I'm not in love with the pit fiend, and if it represents one of the more "tricked-out" monsters in the game, I'll be disappointed.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My players who don't DM haven't.

In our group, everyone DMs. I suspect that might be the case for other groups, as well. I think keeping the "air of mystery" was difficult in 3.x, because too often, the players had to look up rules outside the PHB.
- The MM for all the summoned monsters and animal companions. (Unless the DM would try to run all this by himself. Which I certainly wouldn't want to do, to avoid my head exploding )
- The DMG if you used starting wealth and began higher level characters. (Unless the DM "pre-made" the characters for the player. Which I wouldn't want to do, since its the players character, and he should be responsible for defining him... And my head might explode, too. )

Maybe 3.x conditioned us to "forget" that there was a time where all this might have been "mysterious" to the player.
But then, my first role playing game was Shadowrun. There was only one core rulebook. "Magic Items" (Cyberware and actual magic items) where all in this one book. Hiding this stuff from the players was impossible for many reasons. So I was never in this mindset.

 

[Lanefan]

In our group, everyone DMs. I suspect that might be the case for other groups, as well.

In my 1e group-to-be, of 6 potential players one is a regular 1e DM and knows more than I do, two others have briefly tried their hands at it years ago and forgotten it all, one has briefly DMed 3e, and the other two haven't DMed ever (as far as I know). So for 5 out of 6, the air of mystery is very much in play.

I think keeping the "air of mystery" was difficult in 3.x, because too often, the players had to look up rules outside the PHB.
- The MM for all the summoned monsters and animal companions. (Unless the DM would try to run all this by himself. Which I certainly wouldn't want to do, to avoid my head exploding )

DM comes up with these.

- The DMG if you used starting wealth and began higher level characters. (Unless the DM "pre-made" the characters for the player. Which I wouldn't want to do, since its the players character, and he should be responsible for defining him... And my head might explode, too. )

Player rolls up the character and sees to mundane equipment etc., but DM determines what it has for magic items and wealth otherwise. Reality dictates, after all, that you might not have found everything you wanted and-or might have been luckier/unluckier than some in obtaining and-or keeping wealth...

The bigger problem with magic items in the PH, however, is that when you find something in the field you'll immediately know exactly how to test it to determine what it does, as the options are all listed right in front of you. Where's the mystery in that? (I hold out *some* hope here that they'll put some very strong encouragement in the DMG for DMs to invent their own magic items and think outside the box, but I'm not holding my breath...)

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Anything changed? Anything to add?

*performs thread necromancy*

Often enough, we read criticism on 4E from people that mostly dislike it.
It often comes down to the same points repeated, and us 4E likers have to jump in and defend what we like (or so we believe ).

But this thread is a chance for those that like most aspects of 4E to describe the stuff they still worry about.
Changes going to far? Changes going not far enough? Weaknesses in the design assumptions? Drawbacks we'd prefer to avoid?

So, have your worries changed after your first play-test experience, or reading the excerpts from WotC? Have you no worries? Have some of them gone away? Are most fears still unresolved?