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

[Wormwood]

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.

All this (and I even like the fluff).

I'm a gamer first---and D&D is just one of the RPGs that I enjoy. Consequently, I don't really care 30 years of accumulated cruft 'sacred cows'.

As long as D&D is fun, I'll play.

4e looks fun.

 

[pogre]

A new edition needed major changes IMO. Lesser changes would have increased howls of protest - much like 3.5.

I can understand why it is too much change for some folks though.

 

[The Human Target]

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.

I agree with all this.

To me, DnD is anything the people who make the game choose to make it.

Having a sense of entitlement for the game and what is or isn't DnD is silly and fairly selfish.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Considering the great poll from a while back that listed out over a dozen elements as being the core of D&D, and how pretty much every element that was agreed upon by a lot of people as being the core of D&D is still going to be in 4E, I don't think you can say it is not going to be D&D anymore.

Regardless, the game is going to change a lot, but it is still going to be more similar to 3E D&D than it is going to resemble something like Alternity, Champions, or Battletech. Most of the new concepts for 4E are concepts which were widely popular when implemented in late 3E, and a lot of the new flavor has many fans (myself included).

There are many widespread changes to the mechanics and math, but these are changes that needed to happen. The one consensus I have ever seen about 3E mechanics is that they break down a lot in all kinds of ways. Since it is impossible to both improve the mechanics and keep the mechanics identical to how they always have been, change is necessary to help the game.

I say bring on the change. Just rehashing the same rules will never fix the problems tht so many people complain about, and there is no reason to use bad setting material and falvor just because it is old.

 

[nutluck]

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.

Most likely true, but then again it was the recent stuff like that. That got me back to playing other games again.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

I remember, back in highschool when 3.0 was first coming out, and my gaming group back then didn't want to get into it. "too many things are changing" "we already have all the rules" "I know this system too well" and so on.

Then 3.0 came out, and it was an excelent system. So we all got into 3rd.

Then, only a few years later, 3.5 came out. I was no longer part of that gaming group, and in a different part of the country. Players there were angry "We don't need a whole new book for a couple feats" "the monster manual 1 and 2 already cover the critters in the new MM" "What could posibly warrant a new edition already?" and so on.

Then it came out, and I for one LIKED the little changes and completely converted to 3.5 and my playing group was happy with the little changes, as well as the big ones.

Now 4th edition is coming out, and all I'm hearing is the same things that I heard for the turn of other editions. I'm going to at least give the core a go at it. PHB, DMG, and MM. Who knows, it MIGHT just be the be-all and end-all to roleplaying. Then again it might be a flop. The fact of the matter is that I don't know what it is. No one here knows what it is, and until we do we shouldn't be so quick to pass judgement.

Don't give up on somthing just because 2nd hand information doesn't sound the way you want it to. Look at it for yourself when it comes out, then deside.

Anyways, thats my rant for this week.

 

[3catcircus]

There are many widespread changes to the mechanics and math, but these are changes that needed to happen. The one consensus I have ever seen about 3E mechanics is that they break down a lot in all kinds of ways. Since it is impossible to both improve the mechanics and keep the mechanics identical to how they always have been, change is necessary to help the game.

Really, when you look at it, the math itself is the same between 1st/2nd/3.x editions - that is - the core combat mechanic. A 1st level fighter with a THAC0 of 19 in 1st/2nd is now a 1st level fighter with a +1 BAB in 3rd edition - that is - they still have a bonus (of absolute value of one) vs. other classes at 1st level and the fighter still has to roll a nineteen to hit AC 20. The whole THAC0 with negative AC being more protective is simply the same as BAB vs. AC 10 with positive AC being more protective - all they've done is shifted the indexes on the "sliderule..." I'd say that they *did* improve the mechanics and keep them identical, all they've done is allow people to think with positive numbers vice negative numbers.

I say bring on the change. Just rehashing the same rules will never fix the problems tht so many people complain about, and there is no reason to use bad setting material and falvor just because it is old.

So, is there any reason to use bad setting and flavor just because it is *new*? Is there any reason to change the fluff just to make the claim that it is "new and improved" even if said change does nothing but make headaches for people who have established campaigns using material from previous editions? The idea of adding the Shadovar to FR, for example, is tolerable because I can choose to ignore it. The idea of suddenly making FR "points of light" now invalidates (or at least makes it very difficult to hand-wave what was before) some of the core fluff - trade routes, for example, or the whole Silver Marches confederacy and claim that things are "the same as it ever was."

 

[Alzrius]

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.

QFT.

'Nuff said.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I predict that D&D is going to go the route of many heavy metal bands: it will come out with a new edition, alienate a large chunk of its fanbase, suffer a less than anticipated "success", reevaluate as the market continues to shrink, and eventually release a 5E version that takes D&D "back to its roots."

We've gone from "fixing grappling" to foisting daggers/rods/wands/staves on wizards (one of the silliest "innovations" I've seen so far). Gutting spell schools, randomly deleting gods, tieflings in - gnomes out, etc., etc., etc.

It's just bizarre. I keep thinking I'm going to wake up one day and all this 4E crap will turn out to be a bad joke. I'll admit that I wasn't fond of 4E coming out as soon as it is. But with what 4E is turning out to be, I'm a whole lot of underwhelmed. I'd rather they just pull another X.5 and incrementally move 3.5 to 4.0.

It seems like there's too much big change for the sake of change, with little "method behind the madness." Crikeys, someone posts an idea and next thing you know it's been adopted and the whole D&D universe is rewritten.

I feel like I'm in Bizarro World.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Honestly?

I think that all the change is good. If anything, it is good for business. The last thing the game needs is a new edition that is almost identical to the last edition. If that happened, people would gripe about having to buy a whole new set of rulebooks just to get the majority of the same old rules that had been "fixed."

There are many people excited about the change, so the designers must be going in a direction that some want them to go. For that, i applaud them ... and I hope the players of the new edition do have fun!

At the same time, I do have to recognize that the amount of change is too much for me. But, I'm content with 3.x edition. I haven't bought a book since Camplete Mage. I didn't care for ToB:Bo9S, MoI, the racial books, and the like. So, I've settled into the 3.x that I enjoy and am content. [About the only things I intend to continue to buy are 3.x psionic supplements. I have enjoyed the recent releases from Dreamscarred Press.]

So, I am glad the changes are more sweeping and less subtle. It makes it easier for people who like 3.x to stay with it. And for those who wanted something different than 3.x, they get another shot at a game to like. Furthermore ... truth be known that I've got enough 3.x material to last a lifetime, so the lack of support for 3.x doesn't particularly scare me, either.

I say bring on more change!