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

[Vysirez]

Classes not flexible enough. For instance, my opinion of 4e went from 90% to 75% after seeing the Rogue preview. This has me worried the ranger will only be able to use two combat styles.

I have to echo this statement. I have been very pro 4e and I like a lot of the things they have done, however the rogue preview has made me a bit nervous that the classes will be too restrictive in WOTCs attempt to create class roles.

My only other fear/dislike so far is the saving throw mechanic. Basically means that very few ongoing effects will last more then a couple rounds. Often enough they might not even last a round. For example the Crimsaon Edge rogue power in the rogue preview, grants ongoing damage 5 and combat advantage until target saves. So you will get at least 1 round of damage, but it's entirely possible that the target will save before you can get any use out of the combat advantage.

 

[BASHMAN]

Fear: "classic" races & classes being held hostage in additional $40 core books. No Half-Orc Barbarians, Gnome Druids, or Monks till you shell out $40 for them, even if you already bought the PHB... Having "new" classes-- like ninjas, etc, in an additional & optional book seems fair-- but the classic stuff... that's just mean!

 

[MaelStorm]

I just read the rule Appendix for DDXP. In my previous post I said I would change skills or powers maybe. Well, I won't loose time with it. I'll keep the game fantastic and simple as it is intended to be (even if I find it lacks depth).

 

[Soel]

Fear - that the marking/conditions during combat will be just as difficult as similar things were in 3e

Fear - that Psionics, when it appears, will be far less innovative than it was in the XPH and will just seem like another wizard. I really am weighing the pros and cons of just using 3.5 psionics in a 4e game.

Fear - that the drive to define exact roles for the classes doesn't stifle creativity (though this is probably the easiest to deal with)

Fear - where do we go from here? Tome of Battle and its contemporaries helped folks shape 3.5 into desirable use. The similarity of 4e classes' powers just seems to me that future classes must all be built in the exact same model, and I worry that too much similarity can actually be a bad thing. I don't think it'd be so easy to o a TOB-esque book for those who aren't as happy with 4e. (third party companies might save us, though!)

 

[Simon Marks]

Fear: A battle grid is required;
Counter: I thought the same about 3.X, and we managed without it

Fear: Too much to keep track of?
Small, fiddly bonuses are troubling - then again we just about managed to keep track of the modifiers of a Raging, Hasted Barbarian who is the subject of Inspire Courage, Ray of Exhaustion and was Sickened. Just.

Fear: Action Points will suck.
Action Points, unless they do something more than 1 action don't do enough to counter the option of just resting.

Fear: It won't be better than 3.5
If 4e isn't better than 3.5, then we won't play it. I won't run D&D any more, and neither will the other DMs in the group. That will lead to us abandoning D&D like we did with 2e.
Our tastes have changed, if 4e doesn't help then D&D may go on hiatus again. I'd rather it didn't.

 

[hong]

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

Fear: they will not remove the snot from 4E psi.

 

[TerraDave]

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?

Short Version:

Default World: I don't need it, and probably you don't either, and nobody needs so much of it in the PHB. I know the makers of 4E know that many of us don't need it or may not even want it (I have it from the horses' mouths), and yet we are still getting it.

Is it really that easy?: Like many others, I wonder how easy this will be at higher levels. 4+ starting powers, one new one per level, one feat every other level...seems like a lot to keep track of, no matter what is coming from the horses' mouths.

And thats it. Oh, I may tweak a thing or two not related to those, but otherwise I am pretty happy with what we have seen so far.

 

[SSquirrel]

Here's where I share and don't share your concerns:

One thing that has been bugging me lately is the utter lack of fluff text for monsters. There is no ecology information at all, no text on the habits and tactics of the creatures, their outlooks, histories, or organizations. Just "Chuuls live in grottoes! **crunch crunch crunch crunch**"

I appreciate the idea that you can fill in your own fluff, but where are the adventure hooks? Where is the fluff I don't have to write because someone already did? I kept hearing in the previews that they were writing fluff for these monsters, but it looks like only some of them, like the fire archons, will actually get a write-up, while others will languish in stat block limbo.

Someone may have mentioned this already, I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but they have said that ever monster will be a 1-2 page monster. Plenty of room for all that. I wouldn't expect to see lots of ecology info and such in a demo that has specific encounters designed.

Fear: Power creep will set in with the release of the first splatbooks, and most of the MM1 monsters will begin to look laughably underpowered.

Fear: That wizards won't be as fun to play now that they don't apparently get 20 new spells every spell level.

Those are my main ones at the moment.

Well considering wizards NEVER got 20 new spells every level unless you had a very odd DM...

 

[cdrcjsn]

My greatest fear is that I invest in some third party token markers to denote conditions and WotC creates a better one that all the cool kids get instead. Then they'll all laugh at my old, dated non-official markers.

 

[zoroaster100]

I'm feeling generall pretty positive about 4th edition, but my biggest concern is with powers that won't make sense to the point of breaking believability. For example, there was a recent discussion of who mirror image grants a bonus to AC but not to Reflex. That seems bizarre that it would not help Reflex. Also, it seems that images would disappear when an attack hits even if the images did not help to defend against that type of attack. Another example is the cleric's powers that work only when he hits with a melee attack, but affect an ally in a distant part of the battlefield. Those also seem strange, and strain my suspension of disbelief. If there are only a few of those I hope to be able to either ignore them or to reimagine explanations for them that are less offensive to my sensibilities. But that is probably my biggest concern right now.