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

[That One Guy]

I think it will stay 3E.

I think that's also for the better - The system-related jokes are not as prevalent as in the beginning, but they still exist, and switching to 4E changes too much. I could see it switching to Pathfinder a lot easier .

I'd love to see a new stick-figure webcomic with Rich's quality mocking 4E rules. But I am happy with what I've got.

Thanks! I'm glad to hear that's the word on the street. I don't want Roy to come back, use cleave, and then comment on it being a level one at-will power instead of a feat. XD

 

[Shades of Green]

Crossposted from the GSL FAQ thread:

I fear that WotC or their bosses at Hasbro might be temped to outlaw sites providing fan-created character classes and options that don't exist in PHB I but do exist in PHB II or III. Say, if I make my own Druid from scratch after getting PHB I, I fear WotC ordering me to remove it from the 'net once PHB II comes out, even though it is my class created from my imagination and having no relationship whatsoever to the PHB II class except for the name ("Druid") and the core concept (nature-priest).

That is, by far, my worst fear about 4E.

 

[Cryptos]

(Stupid laptop button... posted before I was finished. Sorry. This can be deleted.)

 

[tuffnoogies]

Fear- that the new classes will be too specific. The new rogue seems to be more like a thief and less like a swashbuckler type. That'd be easy enough to houserule though.

Fear- the move from simulationist to gamist will be a bad idea. I'm not too wild about the full and total healing with an extended rest. Some injuries should last more than 1 day.

Fear- that DDI will follow in E-Tools footsteps.

 

[Cryptos]

I’m actually wondering about utility powers and how well balanced they could be. They’re not attack abilities and there aren’t many examples, so they seem to get glossed over, but it looks like they could have a dramatic effect on an encounter. I notice that there is an encounter utility spell in the wizard list that is per encounter, and presumably there will be both encounter choices and daily choices in the utility powers.

Displacement Wizard Utility 16
The recipient of this spell appears to be standing slightly to the left or right
of his actual position, making it harder for enemies to hit him.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Illusion
Immediate Interrupt Ranged 5
Trigger: A ranged or melee attack hits you or one ally in range
Effect: The attacker must reroll the attack roll.

Greater Invisibility Wizard Utility 16
With a wave of your hand, you or another creature nearby fades away
becoming invisible.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Illusion
Standard Action Ranged 20
Target: You or one creature
Effect: The target is invisible until the end of your next turn, if
the target attacks, the target becomes visible.
Sustain Minor: If the target is within range, you can sustain the
effect.

From this, could we assume that per encounter utilities would be more like the instant interrupt above, while daily utilities are sustainable, or last to the end of an encounter, or are simply more powerful? But then, what about things like Dispel Magic, a daily utility power? One magical effect and you’re done. Kind of anti-climatic.

Displacement seems like it has a feat’s level of power (force a reroll once per encounter) whereas Greater Invisibility could make things ugly if a wizard sustains a Greater Invisibility on say, a Rogue, until he gets one incredible shot at the boss, for the one big encounter of the day. That speaks to balance issues in my mind. But then, a character that only chooses Daily utilities might have a lot less to do during the average encounter, which brings up an issue of “fun.” It seems like you could “gimp” or “tweak” yourself one way or the other if you took the extreme of all encounter utility powers or all daily utility powers (albeit temporarily if you can reselect powers when leveling) so that you’re either weaker but more interesting to play in general encounters or considerably more powerful for that big boss fight.

I’m also curious about why some things are daily and some others are encounter. Dispel Magic as a Daily seems fairly lackluster, especially if all the successive Dispels are also dailies. You can disrupt one magical effect per day, ever? Really? (Unless there is a utility spell down the line that is encounter based, allowing you to replace that level 6 daily Dispel with something more useful, characters might have to use up yet another utility power to also get a Greater Dispel later on just so they have a chance of doing it more than once.)

Assuming there’s something like a Spiderclimb spell in there somewhere as a utility power, surely it would be per encounter, yes? I’d feel pretty silly saying, “I can climb up a wall. Once.” ("And if I don't sustain it I can't climb back down.") And I think that would be a pretty poor choice for a utility power if it were daily. It feels like it should be a per encounter power… but then if it is around the same level as Dispel Magic, you’ve got one guy that could cause all manner of havoc in a fight by climbing up where no one can reach him every time vs. the other guy, who gets to nix a single magical effect per day. How did they decide which utility powers are encounter-based and which are daily?

This also makes me wonder, since there are encounter utility powers and daily utility powers, are there also At-Will? What would those be like, if the encounter utility example is just a single interrupt re-roll per encounter? Would they be like extra cantrips?

I've developed an awful lot of questions about the effect of utility powers on the game just thinking about it for a short time. I wonder if this will be 4e's "can of worms"... sort of like Polymorph was in early 3e.

So I guess in asking these questions, I’ve kind of developed a concern over the balance of utility powers in terms of both power and fun.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Ah, time for another long winded post.

1) I dislike the fluff STRONGLY, but FEAR: I'm worried the fluff will be somewhat forced on us. In 3.x, one of the (odder) points of contention was the lack of fluff, which I really saw as a GREAT thing. It meant you could near seamlessly shift things around. But if the mechanics and fluff are too intertwined, like I'm starting to feel in 4e, it makes shifting things a lot more difficult, and I loves me some homebrew.

2) I've always enjoyed fluidity of combat; not just in actual mechanics, but in style, as well; yet with the large emphasis on the battle grid, FEAR: I'm worried that fights will lose their adaptiveness. One of my fonder memories in a game was having the party fly around a truly enormous monster in their air-ship-thing, pelting it with spells and arrows, while the paladin (who had been playing too many video games) jumped on it from above and began climbing up, a maneuver that culminated in him using it's hair to swing down and kick out it's eye. All this was done almost completely on the fly, all of it was done without grids, and it worked FANTASTICALLY. I'm worried 4e will greately reduce the ability for players to work and think outside the box. I have no problem with grids - I use them from time to time myself - but I do perfer the ability to CHOOSE between using and not using grids.

3) Skills. Skills skills skills. If I loves me some homebrew, then I REALLY loves me some skills. As I mentioned before, I strongly encourage players to work and think outside the box, and to be very versatile in how they do things. Now, I'll be the first to agree that 3.x had way too many skills, some of them completely useless, others of them that should've been combined together. But FEAR: I'm worried that the skill list has been hacked down way too far. It was a common joke in my groups that one day skills in both tabletop and video games would be dumbed down to "FIGHTAN, STEALAN, and MAGICKAN." Unfortuantely, I'm starting to worry that 4e didn't quite take that as a joke. To use the aforementioned example of the paladin who had to have been listening to the Shadow of the Colossus soundtrack in his head, he had planned in advance for this by rummaging through the group's Giant Mound of Magical Items and replacing some of his current equipment with things that increased his balance, jump, climb, and tumble. Part of the excitement of the fight was seeing him just barely manage to roll over each DC as I described his ascent, along with the occasional curve ball I'd throw at him because, well, we can't have our players getting TOO cocksure. If the skills are reduced so drastically, I'm afraid we'll lose these chances to really let the more creative players shine.

4) Classes. If you're seeing a common complaint, then you're reading what I'm trying to convey. One of 3.x's flaws was also it's biggest selling point - versatility in leveling and classes. Yes, it led to a *very* large power creep issue, but even then, players could and would make the classes that really did best define their character. That's why FEAR: I'm worried 4e will greatly hinder the process of making the character concept YOU want. I was extremely dismayed to see how multiclassing was being handled, and I continue to be dismayed at how players seem not to gain new powers, but merely replace old ones with "better, new powerful versions." The name of the game with tabletop gaming should be creativity. If I wanted to play Hackmaster, I'd play Hackmaster. And on the note of feeling dismay, what is this nonesense about no bards? And the, in my opinion, asinine move to take monk and barbarian, classes that have been core for a DECADE, and make you buy a seperate book for them? Lastly, classes are looking too boxed in. One of my favorite classes was the swashbuckler, in no small part because I'm a total fan of pulp. But it seems the swashbuckler no longer exists. While I can see the strengths in wanting to make classes stand out in terms of archtypes, it's far too thin of a line between archtypes and stereotypes, and when you homogenize a class, it gets very boring, very fast.

5) Magic items. I mentioned the party's Big Mound of Magic Items before, and that's a staple in many of my games; the idea of "Don't sell ANYTHING, because we'll totally use it eventually." Honestly, who would have thought the belt of increased balance would come in handy? Well, the paladin did, ,that's who. Magic items in 3.x had the same problems as classes - too much power creep, too many things working together that weren't intended to work together. But having that huge variaty was a good thing; more choices gave more options for more creativity. Now, I haven't read much on what items 4e will have, but FEAR: I'm worried we'll definitely see much less, and those that remain will be much more homogenized.

6) Did I mention I dislike the fluff? I'm totally mentioning that again. Tieflings, dragonborn, and teleports, oh my! The goal is to make things seem cool and sexy, but it's starting to sound almost like a joke. We're gamers, we couldn't be cool if we had a +10 bag of social conformity. And making your game into a picture of a guy in sunglasses jumping out of an airplane while chugging Mountain Dew doesn't fix that. Thus, FEAR: I'm worried that 4e will try to make things too "fantastically awesome!" The problem is, when everyone stands out, nobody stands out. When everything is over the top, it gets bland. Again, if I wanted to play Exalted - which I don't - I'd play Exalted. How is the human player going to feel when he says "I add more damage using my action points!" followed by the dragonborn player saying "I use my own action points to BREATH FIRE!" Or the dwarf that says "I stand my ground and push the enemy back!" right before the Eladrin says "I magically teleport behind the enemy!" How are they going to feel when this happens at level 1?

Edit: I should add: I don't dislike 4e, and I'm definetly not trying to be one of the stock haters that wander around, waving their cane at the youngun's these days with their cell phones and their rock and roll. I'm on the fence. Well, I'm on the fence over mechanics. I'm very far away from the fence as far as the fluff is concerned. But hey, that's what homebrew is for.

Further edit: my spelling really is horrendous. Also, typos EVERYWHERE!

 

[Seule]

I fear that people won't give 4e a chance. I fear that they'll compare it to 3.5, and the current breadth of product available, and complain about not enough choices. I fear that the game won't catch on like 3.0 and 3.5 did, sweeping up 95+% of D&D players. I don't fear any of these things very much, though, based on what I've seen. Even the people who complain now are likely to come around, I expect.

--Penn

 

[Shades of Green]

My current updated fears (after my GSL fears have been thankfully alleviated) are:

1) I fear the way the changes in the magic system - including a form of teleport at level-1 and far more frequent spellcasting - would affect the typical setting. Would healing be more frequent in the world? Would magic be more common in the setting, at least low-level magic? would you see many units of wizards serving as artillery in most armies? And so on...

2) I fear that there would be too much focus on combat, with wilderness travel, city adventuring and plain ol' dungeoneering being neglected by the rules. This fear is especially significant when spells are concerned - most spells are now combat spells with utility spells being combat-related ones; cool spells such as Spider Climb, Create Water, Phantom Steed, ESP/Detect Thoughts and so on seem to be missing.

3) I fear that too much of the old standbys of D&D - such as necromancy, illusions, charm spells, crafting mundane items and so on - would be removed from the first series of core books and moved to later ones, so that PHB1/DMG1/MM1 would be less complete than in previous editions.

4) I fear that long-term (i.e. longer than an encounter) effects such as poison and disease would be either removed or severely curtailed.

5) I fear that 1st-level PCs would be pushed up the power curve in relation to low-level NPCs, making them essentially superheroes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My current updated fears (after my GSL fears have been thankfully alleviated) are:
5) I fear that 1st-level PCs would be pushed up the power curve in relation to low-level NPCs, making them essentially superheroes.

5) The example city guard (or Kobold Skirmisher) NPClooked comparative to a PC in hit points, attack bonus, damage and defenses, the difference probably as much as in 3E (between a level 1 warrior and a level 1 Fighter, for example). The difference between Minions and PCs is a lot stronger, so if you define a low-level NPC as a minion, you're fear is right, if not, don't worry anymore about it.
(The difference at 1st level between PC and Minion seems a little higher then between a 3E Commoner and 1st level PC.)

(I won't address the other fears, since we don't have real solid information on them.)

 

[zoroaster100]

Right now I'm generally very optimistic about 4E. However, my biggest concerns at the moment are:

1) I strongly dislike the cleric and paladin powers that have been revealed that provide a random boost to an ally when you strike a foe. I worry this will make it hard to suspend disbelief.

2) I strongly dislike the paladin challenge because I don't really understand what is causing the damage to the marked target.

3) I dislike the number of powers that are able to slide or pull opponents with attacks regardless of the opponent's size and weight. I worry this will make it hard to suspend disbelief.

4) I liked the old cosmology, in particular the state of development for the Abyss which had been accomplished with the Fiendish Codex and Demonomicon articles in Dragon Magazine. I fear that the GSL will not allow third party publishers to continue developing my preferred cosmology and that WOTC will no longer support it.