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

[fnwc]

Is the saving throw is a little too simple?
A 50/50 chance of failure or success just seems at odds with the rest of the game. Shouldn't my high Con make it easier for my fighter to shrug off poison, and his low Wis make it harder to shake off the effects of a Charm spell?

Much of the basic mechanics of the old saving throws are transferred to the new FORT,REF,WIL defenses. They behave similarly: a high CON will make it more difficult for a power to hit your FORT defense in 4E -- the same way a high CON will make it easier to make the FORT save in 3E. The difference is that in 3E you had some somewhat arbitrary assigning of DCs in some monster descriptions for things like monster poison, for example. I think the 4E way is better as the roll is transferred to the attacker, which scales with the attacker's level, not to mention being more consistent with the rest of the system.

Between both systems, once the attacker hits (4E) or the target fails his save (3E) they suffer the consequences equally. In 3E, if a cleric with a high Wisdom fails his WILL save vs hold person, he is held for some X duration (the same as a fighter with a low Wisdom that fails his save). Similarly, the same cleric and fighter in 4E is held until they roll a 10+ 'save'. Some ill effects in 3E spells are tied to some kind of arbitrary scale such as HP (Power Word: Kill) or HD (Cloudkill) -- but I'm not a big fan of these, as they tend to make these spells quite useless later on in the campaign.

Although I have yet to playtest 4E, I think I prefer the 4E mechanic, as it is more forgiving once the effect hits. One thing I hate about 3E is that some spells are not necessarily 'save or die', but they are definitely 'save or stop playing for 30 minutes'.

 

[The Human Target]

Much of the basic mechanics of the old saving throws are transferred to the new FORT,REF,WIL defenses. They behave similarly: a high CON will make it more difficult for a power to hit your FORT defense in 4E -- the same way a high CON will make it easier to make the FORT save in 3E. The difference is that in 3E you had some somewhat arbitrary assigning of DCs in some monster descriptions for things like monster poison, for example. I think the 4E way is better as the roll is transferred to the attacker, which scales with the attacker's level, not to mention being more consistent with the rest of the system.

Between both systems, once the attacker hits (4E) or the target fails his save (3E) they suffer the consequences equally. In 3E, if a cleric with a high Wisdom fails his WILL save vs hold person, he is held for some X duration (the same as a fighter with a low Wisdom that fails his save). Similarly, the same cleric and fighter in 4E is held until they roll a 10+ 'save'. Some ill effects in 3E spells are tied to some kind of arbitrary scale such as HP (Power Word: Kill) or HD (Cloudkill) -- but I'm not a big fan of these, as they tend to make these spells quite useless later on in the campaign.

Although I have yet to playtest 4E, I think I prefer the 4E mechanic, as it is more forgiving once the effect hits. One thing I hate about 3E is that some spells are not necessarily 'save or die', but they are definitely 'save or stop playing for 30 minutes'.

I like the Defense Scores, I just think the later saving throw itself should be more modified. I get that it levels the playing field a bit, it just seems weird to me. If Dex adds to my ranged attack role and to my Reflex Defense, I kinda want it to add to my saving throw.

 

[Woas]

I have this reoccurring fear that I'm playing D&D 4E naked and everyone is looking at me.




....or maybe it's not a fear?

 

[InShambles]

You realize that "tak[ing] the control of the dice out of the hands of the players" makes, mathematically speaking, no difference at all, right?

Yes. It is broken from a game play standpoint not a game rule standpoint. I guess I should have clarified that.

 

[mach1.9pants]

My worries, (see here:http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4096785#post4096785)

1. Repetitive use of at will powers.

2. Lack of differientation between those of the same class due to small powers list.

 

[Vael]

I fear that I'll have to wait a long time for my favourite 3.5 classes: the Sorcerer and Druid, and that they won't be as enjoyable in 4e.

I wonder whether the system is flexible enough to manage subgames like naval combat, or campaign worlds with firearms and when we'll get rules for that stuff.

While the system is supposed to be more transparent, I wonder if the at will/per encounter/per day powers are so ingrained that it'll be difficult to add new classes that work differently. Gone are attempts at spell-point/mana systems and classes, token-like systems (similar to Iron Heroes), etc.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I agree with all the concerns about being "forced" to play with miniatures in spite of my belief that it CAN be done. I haven't tried it yet, and I fear that it will be very, very difficult.

I also agree with a few of the minor quibbles about keeping track of marks, etc.

My biggest fear is that the "crutch" of the flavor text of the powers will stop players from describing something more interesting for their attacks each round then the basic text of the power. I've always tried to get people to "spice it up" a bit.

I'm NOT worried (as some people are) about how complicated it will be for new players.

I did a demo today for 4 players. The youngest was 10 and the oldest 13. They had more problems with picking the right die and adding their attack bonus to the d20 than they did with understanding which power to use at what time, and what their powers did. It went really well, and they didn't want to leave the store when the parent came to get them. They wanted to play more. (They'd all tried third ed but didn't really "get" all the little rules.)

Fitz

 

[Iron Sky]

Fear: You'll only ever get a handful of powers to chose from. IE. 2 at will, 2 encounter, 2 daily (to keep things "simple").

I'd much rather as a DM (or Player) have the Players have too many good options to choose from than doing the same thing over and over. Diversity in at-wills is especially important. If you have two at wills, and when you get a new one just replace one of the two, that'd suck. Here's hoping that there's a #at-will/encoutner/daily progression so you don't have the same 2/1/1 + racial/class forever.

Fear: After a game or two, the monster and player powers will all feel the same. It was fun and exciting getting to use the different powers and meet new monsters in our practice runs, but who knows how fresh and cool it'll be after a year or two?

Fear: My players will play it and say "meh, let's just do 3.5 again..."

Fear: I'll lose the ability to DM my current 3.5 game due to anticpation for 4E and my players will become dissillusioned and not want to play anymore.

Fear: My players will find some broken mechanic right out of the gate (like Divine Challenge was) and h4x their way through the game...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

fear: my FLGS will make me swallow a live tarantula whole before selling me the books

Sounds rational, and very close to the truth.

I am sorry for you, really.

 

[bramadan]

I am quite enthusiastic about DnD4 (much more then I expected to be seeing as I have not played DnD in quite a while) but here are my gripes/fears:

- Squares. I don't even care about realism but 1-1-1 system just does not seem very interesting tactically. If they wanted to make DnD into an interesting tactical game (and I think lots of rules are awesome in that regard) then they really should have went with hexes. I am not even sure why is square grid such a sacred cow.

- Daily abilities. I am worried as to how much use of those will tilt the combat. Will it be possible to throw a series of encounters that are all fairly balanced and are not total pushovers if PCs use Dailies and very hard if they don't. I hope DM's guide will address this but I can see how it can be an issue. I *love* the encounter and at will abilities though, I think the removal of Vancian magic is the best thing that ever happened to DnD

- Something will happen and Warlord will not be in the PHB or they will muck it up somehow They cant make a class that seems so awesome and not do something wrong

As a note, something that seems to be a biggest fear for most folks (focus on the minis and tactical combat) is actually greatest selling point for me (and incidentally may just end up being a hook for me to get my fiance into the game). Just goes to show that you cant please everyone.