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

[AtomicPope]

Funny, when I read that I thought you had some MINION FEARS. I was waiting for your ELITE and SOLO ones.

hahaha

 

[AtomicPope]

Fear: Not everyone will switch over in a timely fashion.

Fear: The only people to switch will be the ones I've been dodging for years.

Fear: D&D 4.5 is already in the works and has the solutions for intentional and necessary bugs worked out.

 

[Zulithe]

Fear: The dropping of old powers as new powers are learned reduces the believability of the 'world'. As characters level up, they gain access to more powerful abilities, and their lower-level abilities are kicked to the curb in favor of the new, better ones. This goes double for mulit-classing, where you would forego a feat and replace a class feature with a multiclass one. Then, presumably (am i interpreting this wrong?) at next levelup, the PC has the option to erase the multiclassing if they choose, and regain lost class abilities.

Smells to much of 'retraining' in World of Warcraft. Makes little sense to me. Some have mentioned, "Well, in the real world, people forget their old skills all the time, as they move on with life and learn new things." I just don't find this explaination very fitting given how common it is taking place in 4e, to simply excuse this as 'skill atrophy'.

Can someone help put my mind at ease about this, or 'show me the light.' This is my biggest concern about 4e. That players will swap new skills in and out so often that it makes no sense in "the game world." (aka hey i could use magic yesterday when i was crosstrained as a wizard, but now i leveld up and decided to focus entirely on my fighter skills afterall. so now i can't toss fireballs around, even though i could yesterday. etc.)

 

[2eBladeSinger]

Smells to much of 'retraining' in World of Warcraft. Makes little sense to me. Some have mentioned, "Well, in the real world, people forget their old skills all the time, as they move on with life and learn new things." I just don't find this explaination very fitting given how common it is taking place in 4e, to simply excuse this as 'skill atrophy'.

Rum, I hadn't even thought about that... Can I second this?

 

[DonAdam]

Worries:

Including dragon people and demon people will make the fantasy worlds more like the Mos Eisley Cantina than Middle Earth. There's a happy point somewhere in between, but I'm pretty sure its closer to ME (except for Eberron). I guess that's less of a worry and more of an annoyance.

Fights will turn into hit-point grinds where you do the same thing round after round and/or fight after fight (I tend to think that a menu of x/encounter abilities rather than a fixed list would be a little better here).

Little annoying +1 bonuses (especially the elf and half-elf) gumming up the works.

Will it be harder to design archvillains that vary enough across multiple encounters with the PC's?

Having to wait so long for the monk and the illusionist.

Relatedly, magic will be boring (blow stuff up, blow stuff up, and blow more stuff up) until the less blow-stuff-up-ish classes come out.




Things others are worried about that I'm not:

I think it's weird to be worried about unnecessary class proliferation side by side with making classes being too intensive. I'm much happier to have making a class be a high-cost activity, because in general I think you'll see higher quality ones--not universally, but on the whole. (Economists call that an Alchian and Allen effect: the best fruit is in New York City because you have to pay a bigger up front cost for anything, so its relatively cheaper to just go for the good stuff. So if you're going to sit down to design a class, maybe you'll block out a week instead of an afternoon.) The more transparent math should help here too.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Smells to much of 'retraining' in World of Warcraft. Makes little sense to me. Some have mentioned, "Well, in the real world, people forget their old skills all the time, as they move on with life and learn new things." I just don't find this explaination very fitting given how common it is taking place in 4e, to simply excuse this as 'skill atrophy'.

It depends on what people will retrain. It's not like you have to do it all the time either. I mean, with 3E you could also multiclass like crazy (you might get penalties for it, but you could do it), without any rhyme or reason to the in-game world.
(That's not saying that either can't be a problem, from the dreaded "verisimilitude" perspective).
For magical abilities, there is no real need for explaining using new powers over old powers - you just haven't the old powers prepared any more (I'd prefer if you'd still have the choice to do so, though, but that might be reserved for dailies.)
Martial abilities are a little harder. We could assume that the same "narrative" element that makes encounter or daily powers also covers why the old power is "lost" - the situation that is required in the game world (not directly modeled by the game rules) doesn't arise any more, possibly because the character is more focused on achieving a different situation to facilitate the new power.

---

New Fear: Morrus will play a test game, won't like it, and close the boards until all references to 4E have been removed from the database.

(Yes, you can file this under irrational fear.)

 

[Keenath]

Except that not every effect is off, at the end of a turn necessarilty (e.g. if a save is failed.) So we have three or four floating effects and buffs that modify certain attack rolls and genuflect to saves.

I don't know what to say; it simply IS easier, and I've seen it work in my 4e preview game. "Until save" effects aren't that common, so most of your effects end up being end-of-turn things, and once you get used to the "roll a save" step of your turn, you don't really forget that sort of thing.

By the way, I think genuflect was the wrong word there. It means "to bow down".

I did not coin the term 'dungeon punk' but it seems a fair label for a genre of art that has so far distanced itself from classic fantasy.

I didn't claim you invented the term, but that you are misusing it (as are many people, lately). Punk has a specific meaning, so it's best not to use it unless you're trying for that specific meaning.

No, it's not the action in the art to which I object, but the excessive amounts of dungeon-bling on every character from spikes on their bracers to shureikens [sp?] dangling from their watch-fobs.

I guess I just disagree on that front; they look fine to me.

I think it's a fair criticism that in editions past, in one book there were eight options for a wizard and now we have to wait a year just to get maybe get a second one and that, at least for now, all wizards will be 'Tim'.

Yes, because the eight-option guy was too strong!

In any case, I could wish that one of the non-blaster wizardy types were in the PHB, but I also understand that non-blasters are difficult to balance and they probably needed some extra time to figure out how to handle that without producing "I win" spells like Dominate and Charm.

 

[Keenath]

Hmmm... But how easy would they be to integrate into an existing game-world or even into a new one? Do they have clear niches (unlike the Gnome which was a bit into the Halfling's niche, a bit into the Dwarf's niche and a bit into the Elf's niche)?

I think two races can share a niche IF they approach it differently or have very different flavor in that role. I mean, I can see putting a Half-orc and a Dragonborn into the same niche, "big strong fighter guy", but they're going to look very different in the role -- with the dragonborn going into breath weapons and such while the half-orc goes more towards the wild'n'crazy sort of semi-barbarian flavor.

I mean, the Gnome's problem wasn't JUST that he was sharing a niche with other races, but also that his flavor was borrowing from them too.

Anyway, I don't know that the half-orc will wind up being a core race; it may be a monster manual bonus race, which means it doesn't have to have as much "identity".

(I'm personally not that worried about what happens to them, as I never liked half-orcs in the first place...)

I fear the game-world and suspension-of-disbelief implications of the vastly increased number of spells cast by a spellcaster per day. A Cleric could heal twice per encounter; but outside of an encounter/battle/dungeon, how much could a cleric - say, the town's resident cleric - heal?

I suppose it depends on how many healing surges the locals have (I don't think commoners have any, or 1 if they do) and whether "resident cleric" even makes sense in the setting. It's more likely you'd see a ritual-trained commoner as the local holyman rather than a literal classed Cleric, who are specifically meant to be holy warriors.

I fear that the new way attack spells are handled would make the Fighter, the Wizard and the Cleric less unique in comparison to each other. Everyone attacks causes damage like a fighter, after all...

No worries there, based on my limited experience. All it does it make damage more consistent (rather than "Okay, I deal 1d8+12, and you deal 6d6....") but it doesn't change the fact that wizards feel like they're throwing area attacks and so on. Clerics are actually shifting in terms of flavor, IMO; they're somewhat less melee oriented (if they avoid melee powers, at least) and more into holy power. I was suprised when I realized that holy symbols are an Implement that's just as much a weapon as a mace or a wizard's staff, but that's how it is.

Which I guess leads me to one of my fears: I hope clerics don't become too much "flashy evocation" types. It's always been the case that divine magic is somewhat more subtle than arcane, and I like that idea.

I fear that many of the cooler non-combat-related spells which are great for use when dungeoneering, travelling the wilderness or even between adventures would be removed or curtailed in favor of combat-related spells.

Not at all, they're just "siloed" -- meaning utility spells and combat spells don't take up the same resource. If you get a new "spell slot" for combat, that in no way affects your ability to use utility powers, and vice versa. Also, a lot of those spells have become rituals that just aren't combat-related at all and don't fall in the same category as utility powers either.

I fear that long-term implications and effects - such as level drain, disease and poison - would be curtailed and/or limited to the duration of the encounter/combat.

Yeah, me too on that.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

I don't know what to say; it simply IS easier, and I've seen it work in my 4e preview game. "Until save" effects aren't that common, so most of your effects end up being end-of-turn things, and once you get used to the "roll a save" step of your turn, you don't really forget that sort of thing.

By the way, I think genuflect was the wrong word there. It means "to bow down".

I hope that you are right and that it is easier.

I have another fear: You are wrong because you have only played the 'lite' version and that by seventh level in the real edition and or seven splat books later it's actually more convoluted than 3x

BTW, No, genuflect is the word I wanted.

II didn't claim you invented the term, but that you are misusing it (as are many people, lately). Punk has a specific meaning, so it's best not to use it unless you're trying for that specific meaning.

I think spikes, piecemeal armour, leather-straps, chainmail mesh and bandoliers remind some of us of Mad Max -- which is where I think the dungeon-punk came from. However, if you prefer we can try to popularize the term dungeon l'épineux

I guess I just disagree on that front; they look fine to me.

Guess that's just a difference of opinion. I grew up, I loved LOTR and the Elmore drawings made me want to play D&D. The current D&D art doesn't really do that for me. It reminds me of a childrens' cartoon.

Yes, because the eight-option guy was too strong!

In any case, I could wish that one of the non-blaster wizardy types were in the PHB, but I also understand that non-blasters are difficult to balance and they probably needed some extra time to figure out how to handle that without producing "I win" spells like Dominate and Charm.

It's not per se my lack of option, it's that magic is now a utility belt and sidearm.

 

[Shades of Green]

I suppose it depends on how many healing surges the locals have (I don't think commoners have any, or 1 if they do) and whether "resident cleric" even makes sense in the setting. It's more likely you'd see a ritual-trained commoner as the local holyman rather than a literal classed Cleric, who are specifically meant to be holy warriors.

So we will no longer have the starting-town NPC cleric who could heal PCs (among other things) beyond the PC cleric's ability (especially if the PCs are at a low level)?

Also, having adventurers as the only major divine casters around changes the setting much - in most previous D&D settings a typical town had an NPC cleric with respectable magical ability. If adventurers and monsters/villains are the only ones in the world with high-power magic this goes into the direction of a Supers game - not a bad genre by itself, but it isn't D&D.

Which I guess leads me to one of my fears: I hope clerics don't become too much "flashy evocation" types. It's always been the case that divine magic is somewhat more subtle than arcane, and I like that idea.

I second that. Lance of Faith worries me - it's a magic missile with slightly lower average damage (1d8 instead of 2d4) and a small additional effect (making the target easier to hit). Sacred Flame is similar but adds in a minor healing effect. Cascade of Light goes in the same direction as well. Too many direct-damage spells for the cleric. This changes the D&D flavor significantly.

This also makes the cleric too similar to a wizard.