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

[Counterspin]

No one says you have to run a bunch of monsters at one time, but if the system doesn't take that as a goal, you're unlikely to have good enough scaling to run large groups. Better they keep large groups in mind so that both options are present and viable.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I think i've made an observation that i'm curious to have someone explain to me. A lot of complaints about 4e are about it being unflexible and unable to encompass the broad number of settings 3e seemingly can. it is then argued that 3e is a very flexible system. But often it is conceded that 3e edition is only able to encompass these different settings and genres after extensive rule modifications, such as new base classes or magic systems etc.

How is 3e a flexible system if you need to do extensive modifications to the basic ruleset for it to work with other genres and settings than the basic phb. And why is it assumed that one can't do the same with 4e?

i am a cautious optimist about 4e, so i don't really get why so many seem to be overtly (and imo unreasonably) pessimistic. Reasoned arguments, fine. But having one standard for 3e and another for 4e is... strange (imo).

I see what you're say, and to an extent, I agree. But to a different extent I disagree. The fact is is that 1-3e have all been based on general fantasy. 3e does assume greyhawk as a base setting, but the general fantasy is underlying. When you go to specific settings (Eb, DL, etc) you do get rid of certain races and add new ones. No biggie. Can you do that with 4E? Certainly. So 4E would certainly be as flexible as 1-3e.

So how is it inflexible. I believe "inflexible" is the wrong word. I'd instead argue that it is a specific campaign setting. If you want to run current Greyhawk, FR or similar "general" fantasy settings (3E setting, 4E rules) you have to consistantly get rid of the same races and add the same races back in. So the thought is is that if I want to play settings that are long since established and have been playing for the past 20+ years (not me personally, but the gaming population as a whole), sections of the book are unusuable for the general settings but usable in one specific setting (unless the general settings were shoehorned to make it work with these new races).

 

[A'koss]

They (or someone) tried converting some to 3e as well, usually as a "Return To ...", with mixed results. But I'll be interested in seeing what they do with it in any case.

Yeah, at this point we really don't know whether they'll go the "Return to..." route or just bring the classics up to 4e spec.

As for more monsters per encounter, until recently I hadn't seen this as a design feature, but more as something in the purview of the DM when designing encounters...do they meet 6 skeletons or 1 bugbear...and there it should remain. If system-level design enters into it it should be only to ensure both options are viable. Let individual DMs figure out on their own what their parties can handle, and if it means a few pushover encounters and-or a few dead parties along the way, so be it.

They've broken down monsters into various strengths for 4e. A "typical" encounter is supposed to consist of 1 Standard monster per PC. Mooks are equal to 1/4 a standard monster (4 per PC), Elite monsters count as 1 per 2 PCs and Solo monsters are worth 4 or 5 - your solo encounter. Then they've broken them down into roles - brute, soldier, artillery, controller, lurker, skirmisher.

They've described in one interview some examples of this... Eg. An encounter with 1 Elite Controller - eg. Illithid (2), 4 Mook Artillery - eg. Enslaved Dreugar Archers (+1) & 2 Standard brutes - eg. Enslaved Kuo Toa (+2) = appropriate challenge for 5 PCs. Or you could have an encounter with an appropriate Solo threat - eg. Purple Worm. That kind of thing...

So it sounds like there is definitely some good progress in the encounter-building side of things.

 

[cwhs01]

So how is it inflexible. I believe "inflexible" is the wrong word. I'd instead argue that it is a specific campaign setting. If you want to run current Greyhawk, FR or similar "general" fantasy settings (3E setting, 4E rules) you have to consistantly get rid of the same races and add the same races back in. So the thought is is that if I want to play settings that are long since established and have been playing for the past 20+ years (not me personally, but the gaming population as a whole), sections of the book are unusuable for the general settings but usable in one specific setting (unless the general settings were shoehorned to make it work with these new races).

Okay, i agree that this has also been said. But its another type of argument entirely and isn't what i was referring to.
It was said (even earlier in this thread) that 3e is a very flexible rules system and 4e is not. please will someone explain this to me as i believe the statement to be false, or at best unknown since 4e doesn't exist yet.
i'm pretty much convinced that 4e can eventually emulate any of the genres and playtypes 3e could. eventually, meaning not nescesarilly from the get go.

One day i might even find someone to quote, to back up my own statements

 

[tomBitonti]

Well, undoubtedly the designers & developers want to leave their mark on the game - they all do. However, the primary motivation will be to draw in new players and with that in mind it's not hard to see why they'd go with these choices.

One would hope, but I've seen enough software design to know that people don't always use restraint. I think this is getting at a major issue for many folks, which is figuring out how much of the changes are:

* Fixes for problems in the existing 3.5e rules, or improvements. I put the changes to saves under this category. That is like the change from THACO to rolling a D20 equal to or higher than armor class. There are other changes that would fall under this category, such as (assuming there are changes here) to simplify grapple, or to allow spell-caster + non-spell caster type multiclassing (in whatever new mechanic there is), or changes to remove many of the save-or-die resolutions. All of these are fixes.

* Changes that are more trimming / extending core features. I can see the removal of Gnomes as being under this category. If few players use gnomes, then let's remove them from core. If there were lots of demand for a new half-dragon core race (I don't see it, but I'm willing to suppose), then let's add that.

* Other changes to the core mechanics that are made with a goal of moving the game in new exciting directions. This is where I put the eladrin and other race changes. We don't *need* this change, but the designers are speculating that the player community will be happy with the new mechanic / content. Here we get into matters of taste. The new smite abilities? We could get by with just 1 (smite seemed rather underpowered, and too infrequently usable). So there is a reason to make some change. But three smites, usable per encounter? That is more "new exciting stuff". There is also a matter of the quality of the implementation. The strange phoenix ability name is in this category for me.

One of the issue that is a major red flag for me is that I haven't heard concise architectural guidelines for the new release. One presumes that there are some, but what are they?

For example, with 3.0, there was a major new mechanic, that is, the linearization of class abilities. Going up a level is a +X that can be applied to any character. From 3.5, there is a guideline that class abilities should be smoothly distributed across levels, with no major bump at any levels (in particular, no huge bump at first level), as this allowed metagaming shallow dives into certain classes yielding too much of a benefit.

For 4.0, what are the guidelines? I've inferred abilities per day and per encounter, not with enough of a specification to get the underlying design rule.

 

[baradtgnome]

D&D is a 'big' game. What I mean by that is it includes so much material. Even if you play RAW with only core books, you probably leave out some things. For example, if you have a homebrew with your own cosmology, losing the wheel may mean little to you. Even though we say we all play D&D, there is still a fair amount of differences in our games. There has been much discussion on what makes 'real' D&D. I suspect it is a convergence of many items, but not all of those items are core to all our games. Rather than a list of items that everyone uses in our common D&D experience, it is more likely a Venn diagram with lots of circles. We share loads in common, but our games are not identical. So it is not surprising that our passions run differently. To paraphrase the famous quote, we are separated by a common game.

It has also been discussed to death that the only way a 'big' company like WoTC can stay involved in the game is to periodically release new core rules. That is the only time they make big money. Good news, bad news. However, we are resilient. Those who post here play OD&D, AD&D, 2e, 3.xe and a host of other variations. And yet.... most will say they play D&D. Curious.

It sounds like many of the maligned 'features' of 3.x are being addressed. Some of those features are legacy from earlier edition. That is an effective way to rouse the passions of a goodly amount of previous editions proponents. I like much of what I am hearing, am going to consider the new rules with an open mind, but have concerns like most of you. So where am I on the Venn diagram?

25year+ Homebrew world, few splat books/add-ons, Up until now we have played 99+% RAW 3.5e. Historically we played basic, AD&D (house ruled out the behind), 3.0, and now 3.5.

What should the WoTC marketers worry about with me?
- that loss or old races or adding of new races or other 'flavor' that is so integral to the game balance that I can't remove it to fit my world = no 4e for me. My world has survived all the versions so far, I'm not ditching it after 25 years
- that the new game is so compelling that my old fart players are willing to learn another rule set and shell out the $. (one player has AD&D sleep spell burned in his brain and must read the entire 3.5 spell description every time he casts it)
- that we cherry pick some 4e ideas or a single PHB and house rule our 3.5 game to satisfaction and do what we did with AD&D - play it for 15+ years without buy much in the way of product.

I want gnomes. I don’t want my players killing gods. Those items worry me not. They are easily handled on my part. Tell me I MUST have lizardy/dragon creatures as a core race or the game doesn’t balance and we have a problem.

Any change is an opportunity for customers to buy new product or take new direction. (read go with competitors) As of a few weeks ago we ended our compact to play RAW. I think that means WoTC is now competing with our house rules. I hope the completed 4.e system is compelling (less DM prep, faster play, fewer confusing mechanics) without breaking my homebrew world.

 

[Nine Hands]

And that's the part of this that I don't mind so much.

See, I play 3.5e. I like both the Book of Nine Swords and Star Wars: Saga Edition. If they just took the simplified skills from SW:SE and gave Warblade type abilities to the Fighter - fine, cool.

But many of the changes don't have anything to do with that. And they're not "fluff" either.

Yes, people have been clamoring for faster action, grappling not being complicated, etc. But...

- Removing classic races in favor of new ones that I haven't seen anyone clamoring for.
- Removing the school based theory of magic, which I haven't seen anyone clamoring for.
- Removing the Great Wheel, which I haven't seen anyone clamoring for.
- Removing several major schools from wizards, which I haven't seen anyone clamoring for.

Clamor...clamor...clamor...

Well now you have. I LOVE all of those things and I could easily be confused for a Grognar

Gnomes...don't care if they are in the PHB or not, I never play them. School based magic was OK but sort of too...Gygaxian for me.

Great Wheel? I never used it.

Making the Wizard less of a do it all class...good with me...my next campaign was going to ditch the classic generalist wizard and force all wizards to become specialists anyways.

4th Edition is definately the game for me.

 

[DM_Blake]

My take, which will no-doubt be buried in the pile of unread replies, is that video games like WOW need to focus classes into set roles. You expect a warrior to tank, a wizard to blast, a priest to heal, and a rogue to sneak around and backstab. That's fine for WOW.

That isn't fine for a PnP RPG game.

For me, I like flexibility. I like being able to create a race/class combo, then take it where nobody usually takes it. A mage who specializes in spells that enhance his weapons and likes to mix it up with the other melee group members. A rogue who prefers heavy armor and huge 2-h polearms. Whatever the mind can conjure up.

4e seems to be taking away flexibility and moving more toward a PnP version of a video game.

I am unimpressed by this trend, and it might keep me from buying it. Which makes me sad since I've played D&D weekly for more than 30 years and had no intention of stopping.

My fear is that 4e will be really uninteresting to me, but finding a group of people who want to stay with 3.5 might be difficult too. I hope it really goes one way or the other - either I will be loving 4e along with everyone else, or 4e will totally flop and 3.5e groups will abound.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

For me, I like flexibility. I like being able to create a race/class combo, then take it where nobody usually takes it. A mage who specializes in spells that enhance his weapons and likes to mix it up with the other melee group members. A rogue who prefers heavy armor and huge 2-h polearms. Whatever the mind can conjure up.

The problem with this is that it doesn't encourage teamwork. The more flexibility allowed the more powerful your character is. It is possible to make a cleric or wizard (with mutliclassing) who can take ALL the roles in the group by themselves.

For those of us who LIKE the fact that D&D is a team-based cooperative game, it is no fun for us. It sucks when you roll up the cool rogue character who is designed to sneak past anyone, silent as the wind, spending all your skill points in order to be stealthy...then you join the group and say "I'll scout ahead...I'm perfect for this sort of job." only to have the party wizard say "There's a chance you'll be spotted or heard...I'll just cast invisibility and silence and do it myself." Only to realize that the wizard can ALSO fireball and teleport and charm people, and change shape, and any number of other things.

Plus, it often has the other effect on players who don't know the rules that well. They end up making this cool multiclass, nonstandard character who is EXACTLY the sort of character they want to play. Then during the first battle they die as the one thing they DID managed to do with their multiclassing was make their character completely ineffective at combat. Then they quit because they think the game is stupid.

It tends to be mutually exclusive. If you want a game where anyone can sit down and make a character who will not only be able to survive combat but also to be able to do cool stuff in every round of combat and where the player's characters don't step on each others toes or make the other players feel useless, you can't have a game that is too open ended and flexible.

 

[jaerdaph]

I first played D&D in the late 70s. Honestly, I feel there are so many changes in 4e that it doesn't really feel like D&D to me back then, at least from what I've seen so far. That's not necessarily a bad thing, nor is necessarily a good thing either. More importantly, I think there are a lot of changes in 4e that make it feel like a different game than 3e, which I'm not so sure is a good approach either, because 3e is the current game, still breathing with an active fanbase. A lot of what I'm seeing, IMHO, seems to be change for change's sake only.

I have no doubt that 4e will be a good fantasy roleplaying game. But will it truly be D&D (other than the fact it has a D&D logo slapped on it)? I'll have to wait and see before I know that.