D&D 4E 4e - Too much change?

[mxyzplk]

So a lot of what we're hearing about 4e isn't necessarily "bad" per se, but it is very different than previous D&D versions. There was some change from 1e to 2e, and some from 2e to 3e, and a very little from 3e to 3.5e, but this seems to be more "a RPG inspired by some aspects of historical D&D" than a rev of D&D itself.

From version to version you used to get one or two class add/deletes or race adds/deletes, though usually they had some history behind them. I think the thing most concerning about the new races and classes in 4e is that they have little (warlock, tiefling) to no (warlord, dragonborn) history behind them.

Now, wizards are only evoker/illusionists, schools depart for implements, et cetera. The thing is that these changes are even more intrusive to the game than mechanics only changes. From 1e to 2e and 2e to 3e, you could pretty easily rebuild the same character. Campaign worlds advanced but things didn't suddenly start working completely differently.

In 4e, Wizards is clearly saying that anyone expecting Greyhawk, FR, or Eberron to continue as before can go hose. And supplements, scenarios, etc. from previous editions will be totally unusable. And, frankly, anyone who has a specific character type they liked in previous editions has a good chance of not being able to recreate them.

And I'm not sure what they are getting in return. A new game that, from these tweaks, is somehow going to be much more marketable to a new group of gamers? I think marketing for D&D has always been and is now so weak that it's not going to leverage it anyway, but even if it did, I guess I don't see what is "better enough" to compensate for the massive incompatibility with D&D history.

Comments?

 

[Michael Morris]

Honestly - at this point I'm starting to think 4e will be the biggest corporate mistake since "New Coke." I *was* going to buy all three core-rullebooks sight unseen, but at this point I'm only getting a PHB before comitting to the other two. The more I hear, the more I think that while this may be an interesting game in its own right, it isn't D&D.

 

[Odhanan]

Too much change going on for me. 4E may bear the name "Dungeons & Dragons", but for me it looks more and more like it isn't going to be.

 

[neceros]

I'm one of the ones that likes almost all of the changes I've seen so far. The only hesitation I have is the flavor changes, but in the end that sort of stuff can be reimplemented if necessary.

D&D has needed a mechanics boost for a long, long time.

 

[Sunderstone]

Honestly - at this point I'm starting to think 4e will be the biggest corporate mistake since "New Coke." I *was* going to buy all three core-rullebooks sight unseen, but at this point I'm only getting a PHB before comitting to the other two. The more I hear, the more I think that while this may be an interesting game in its own right, it isn't D&D.

Agreed on all counts. I originally intended to buy the core just to see what they changed rules-wise. Now, the PH itself might not even be a possibility.
Ive been saying that 4E should have been renamed to something other than D&D since the first changes were revealed.

 

[Banshee16]

So a lot of what we're hearing about 4e isn't necessarily "bad" per se, but it is very different than previous D&D versions. There was some change from 1e to 2e, and some from 2e to 3e, and a very little from 3e to 3.5e, but this seems to be more "a RPG inspired by some aspects of historical D&D" than a rev of D&D itself.

From version to version you used to get one or two class add/deletes or race adds/deletes, though usually they had some history behind them. I think the thing most concerning about the new races and classes in 4e is that they have little (warlock, tiefling) to no (warlord, dragonborn) history behind them.

Now, wizards are only evoker/illusionists, schools depart for implements, et cetera. The thing is that these changes are even more intrusive to the game than mechanics only changes. From 1e to 2e and 2e to 3e, you could pretty easily rebuild the same character. Campaign worlds advanced but things didn't suddenly start working completely differently.

In 4e, Wizards is clearly saying that anyone expecting Greyhawk, FR, or Eberron to continue as before can go hose. And supplements, scenarios, etc. from previous editions will be totally unusable. And, frankly, anyone who has a specific character type they liked in previous editions has a good chance of not being able to recreate them.

And I'm not sure what they are getting in return. A new game that, from these tweaks, is somehow going to be much more marketable to a new group of gamers? I think marketing for D&D has always been and is now so weak that it's not going to leverage it anyway, but even if it did, I guess I don't see what is "better enough" to compensate for the massive incompatibility with D&D history.

Comments?

I'm getting increasingly concerned about 4E. Maybe it'll be great.....but a lot of this is starting to feel like "change for change's sake", rather than because it's necessarily good for *my* game.

This stuff with the wizard? Some of what had been discussed was really sounding neat. Get rid of Vancian spellcasting, move more towards a per encounter and per day model for abilities. This *could* be cool, depending how it's done. But then they just veered 90 degrees, and all of a sudden all these spells that are in the history of the game, that allow wizards to do cool stuff appears to be going out the window. If I wanted to play a warlock blaster, I'd play a warlock. A wizard is supposed to be flexible, but it *sounds* like they're getting rid of a lot of the spells that used to do anything other than blow things up. Funny thing is, my D&D game isn't all about blowing stuff up. There's a tonne of roleplaying in there. We've heard nothing about scrying, or contingency effects, or spell mantles or polymorph, stoneskin, time stop, or any number of interesting things they used to be able to do. But we know they can blow things up. But that makes them really a one-trick pony.

That's just the latest, concern, I guess. There's all kinds of other stuff, like getting rid (possibly) of classes and races (where's the half-elf??). And the anime-style stuff like everyone being able to have "effects" etc. kind of feels not right. I liked the Tome of Battle. Haven't tried it yet...but it seems cool. But all the cheesy stuff like throwing fire from one's sword and the real magicky-style effects would have had to go. I was planning on just redoing the descriptions, but still using the maneouvers.

I'm starting to get concerned that 4E could split the customer base. Theoretically, if the new edition isn't popular, there could still be a market for companies to produce product for the 3E ruleset. It's probably a long shot, but the D20 license isn't going away, right? If 4E flops, some enterprising company might find a market among those unwilling to switch.

This game is seems increasingly like it's not D&D. There are some cool ideas in there, definitely.....but it *feels*, based on some of these hints, and things like this, that they came up a good idea, and then took it 3 steps too far, instead of using the "cool kernel of an idea". I don't know.

I'm definitely going to wait before making any decisions at this point.

Banshee

 

[A'koss]

For the most part I love the direction they're going in.

A lot of the new design elements & philosophy have been things I've been clamoring for, for years now. Okay, some of the fluff I'm not so keen on, but that's the easist stuff to clean.

In the long run most people are going to come around (so long as the game isn't borked in actual play). For all the changes 4e brings it is still nowhere near as big a transition as it was moving from 2e to 3e.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's only a lot of change if you've not been using the late 3e books, particularly Tome of Battle. If you are, it's practically no change at all.

I don't think it will be that hard to convert. A 5th level fighter with a 16 str and a 15 cha who uses a sword and shield becomes a 5th level fighter with a 16 str and a 15 cha who uses a sword and shield. An encounter with one troll becomes an encounter with five trolls.

There are still going to be monsters living in holes in the ground being beseiged by small bands of incredibly heavily armed killers. Practically all of the 3e system remains. We even still have minutiae like swift and immediate actions.

Look at the change from core OD&D in 1974 to the 1e PHB 4 years later. Elves, dwarves and hobbits became races instead of classes. Seven new classes appeared - druid, paladin, ranger, illusionist, thief, assassin and monk. And the first prestige class, the bard. Several new races - gnomes, half-elves and half-orcs. These are far more extreme than the changes between 3e and 4e, which took place over 8 years, twice the time gap.

Now you might say that these changes were far less extreme if you were using the OD&D supplements such as Greyhawk and Blackmoor. But that's exactly my point. The same sort of thing is occurring now as in 1978, but to a lesser degree.

If 4e isn't D&D, then 1e wasn't D&D times four, because it was twice the amount of change in half the time.

 

[Umbran]

i think the news we are getting, like the news we got back with 3e, is too disjointed and out-of-context for me to make a judgement about whether or not it will be good.

That is something we need ot remember - back with the 3e release, there were people saying pretty much the same thing - that there were too many changes for it to be D&D - who came to love the new game.

Which is not to say you will love 4e. It merely suggests that making final judgments before you can see the entire set of rules is perhaps not the most wise course. There is no need to decide now whether you'll like the new game, so why do so without complete information.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Honestly - at this point I'm starting to think 4e will be the biggest corporate mistake since "New Coke."

QFT.

It's probably a long shot, but the D20 license isn't going away, right?

d20 licence and logo is gone as of ... soon. The logo to be is Paizo's 3.5 OGL compliant logo. Maybe they're interested in licencing that logo *hopeful*