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

[Deekin]

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.

No moreso than previous versions of D&D. In nearly all class based games, you will be penailized for going outside of your class. A mage that specializes in buffing his weapons will be eaten by monsters that were designed to hand someont with 2x as much HP, AC, and attack bonus. A rogue is heavy armor will eat huge ACP till he's proficent, and even then, it reduces his effectiveness with all he thievery skills.

4th edtion seems to be moving away from that, though, with feats that let you pick up other classes talent trees. A fighter might learn a few spells to enchant his blade. A rogue might pick up the talents that cut down on ACP, allowing him to sneak full well in fullplate.

 

[Hairfoot]

I've got my blinders on. I don't like the way 4E is going. A lot of experienced players don't. But the reason WotC got D&D is because they built up a hugely successful market for a game of cards. Cards, for glod's sake!

It may yet be a sound marketing decision even if it means "firing the [current] customer". And they know what we know: even if it's hated by current players, we'll still buy the core.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

The debate there, of course, is whether those are all problems that need fixing...look at all the discussion last month in here regarding save-or-die. But I agree with your analysis of the types of changes...

* 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.

There are one or two other (sub-)types of changes I'll lob in here:

* Experimental changes, made just to see if they'll fly or not. Here I'd include a lot of the changes made to spells going from 2e to 3e, the massive increase in buffage, and so on. No doubt there'll be some more of these types of changes going in to 4e, and some will work out and some will not. One such trial balloon may have been the Emerald Frost business.

* Knock-on changes. These include all changes forced by a change to something else, that would not necessarily otherwise have been made. I suspect most of what we're reacting to as "change for the sake of change" are in fact knock-on changes caused by things we haven't heard about yet.

Lanefan

 

[Malk]

I like a lot of the changes that I see coming in Fourth. They mostly seemed aimed at fixing the problems that my group has encountered in 3.5. I predict that my group will seemlessly pick up the new edition, and that our sessions wont look all that different. We will still be playing DnD. That having been said, I would not turn down new games still set in 3.5 because its a good system.

 

[Malk]

I've got my blinders on. I don't like the way 4E is going. A lot of experienced players don't. But the reason WotC got D&D is because they built up a hugely successful market for a game of cards. Cards, for glod's sake!

It may yet be a sound marketing decision even if it means "firing the [current] customer". And they know what we know: even if it's hated by current players, we'll still buy the core.

Hey, way to deride others hobbies.

Also, a lot of experienced players that I know (including myself) are excited, as far as anecdotal evidence goes.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Well, I started playing BECMI in the 80s, and in retrospect both AD&D and 3rd edition are completely different games from that. However, they're all D&D, and I don't suppose 4th edition is so different that it stands by itself in an outgroup compared to the other editions. I'm actually one of the people who gets the feeling that 4th edition will remind me of BECMI, which will be a good thing if it happens.

 

[mhensley]

Those are good ones.

I couldn't help but think the heroic/paragon/epic paradigm was lifted right out of the BECMI breakdown as well.

So, maybe we'll see: P1 - Isle of Dread? That would be pretty sweet.

 

[Simon Marks]

So, maybe we'll see: P1 - Isle of Dread? That would be pretty sweet.

Nah, I think that Expert got rolled up into 'Heroic' level so it'll be more like "Sabre River" (the only Companion adventure I remember).

I do hope that they include the 4 elements though. Seems like they are.

Heroic = Basic + Expert = Dungeon & Wilderness exploration.
Paragon = Companion = Region wide heroes and setting up your own dominion
Epic = Masters = Setting up your own legacy, saving the world, becoming immortal.

 

[Hairfoot]

Hey, way to deride others hobbies.

How did I do that?

 

[Fifth Element]

How did I do that?

"Cards, for glod's sake?"