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

[sunrisekid]

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.

Published material can continue in any way you see fit. My campaign is set in the original grey-box FR setting, converted to 3E, and works perfectly. Personally I can't stand the 3E re-make of FR so I don't use it, and probably won't use 4E FR either - though it's more likely I will take the concepts I like and incorporate them.

Those previous supplements will be just as usable as the 1E and 2E ones are now, ie, really fun to shoe-horn into your own campaign, in the way that you like. Anybody that took an old classic like one of the Giants modules knows I'm talking about My favorite oldie was Quest for the Heartstone; the blend of fluff & crunch was perfect for remixing into 3E. Find a copy if you can, if only for the pre-rolled PCs (especially the evil characters, the artwork is great!). When 4E is published I'll likely have just as much fun re-working it.

As for previous characters, the devs mentioned that _converting_ them will probably not be possible, but recreating them obviously will be. It seems I've read several cases now of a developer or playtester recreating one of their favorite PCs from older game iterations. Very doable. And, frankly, expressing your PC through the available game mechanics in a manner that closely resembles your imagination is a significant part of the fun with D&D.

 

[pawsplay]

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

I don't think it will be that bad. More like that McDonald's "grownup burger" thing.

 

[Voss]

I must be really out of touch with pop culture if I don't get a mcdonald's reference.
What is grown up (or childish) about a burger?

 

[Brian Compton]

Are there too many changes? Fluff- yes (but there are other places to rant on this). Crunch- no. There are changes, but some will make things so much better than they are now.

3E claimed that it was going to bring more options for characters. And in a way it did, but many of those options were sub-optimal depending on campaign style (like a fighter/wizard who wasn't really good at either). But, like in 2E, fighter swings sword, does damage. Paladin swings sword, does damage; sometimes, a little more if smite is invoked. Pretty much same with ranger, except he could swing TWO swords or fire a bow really well. They have spells, but a small number and of minor power (bless weapon being a possible exception, but feats and magic bonuses can give this permanently to weapons later). And later books offered ways to dump non-combat abilities to get more combat abilities. Rogues are skill monkeys and useful, but in combat they spend so much time moving into position that they don't get to do much (or their key combat power gets nerfed by some "immune to crit" ability). Likewise, a wizard or sorcerer that doesn't load up on combat spells gets to spend most of a fight getting out of the way or fighting vicariously by buffing the damage-dealers.

In many ways, I see giving wizards at will and per encounter powers as positive a change as giving clerics the ability to spontaneously cast cure spells- do what your class is known for without being stuck doing only that. Likewise, adopting per encounter and at will powers for warriors and rogues, similar to the ones in Bo9S, will make "swing sword, do damage" more interesting. Imagine a monk, rather than just swinging two or three times, swinging once and doing damage, then grabbing the guy and throwing him 30 ft. into another group of enemies, hurting them too. That's a lot more fun. That's real options. And it won't kill D&D.

Now, killing the gods... that's a whole other issue.

 

[Voss]

Meh. Keep the gods off camera and feed the 30th level characters to a Tarrasque. Same effect, less goofy.

 

[pawsplay]

I must be really out of touch with pop culture if I don't get a mcdonald's reference.
What is grown up (or childish) about a burger?

The Arch Deluxe, it looks like.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E3DB1031F935A2575BC0A960958260

 

[Aldarc]

In many regards, I see 4E as bringing long overdue changes.

 

[howandwhy99]

Flavor-wise it reminds me too much of GI Joe Extreme.

 

[zoroaster100]

I'm concerned about too much change in the flavor and story of the game. I am not concerned about the mechanics changes though. It better be substantial changes to justify an edition change this soon. If it was minor changes, I wouldn't bother even consider changing to the new edition, because why would I want to abandon the substantial investment in rule books, adventures, etc. for only minor rules changes?

 

[Blackwind]

Up until recently I was cautiously optimistic about 4E, planning in all likelihood to make the switch. After reading the last few articles (paladin smites, the wizard info from R&C) I'm a little bit disappointed and thinking I might not switch after all. In fact, after reading that wizard stuff from our Hungarian poster, I canceled my Amazon pre-order of Races and Classes. I'm just not feeling it.

Originally, I was hoping that 4E would make D&D faster to prep and easier to teach to new players. I was hoping for faster, more exciting combats, and less emphasis on stats, builds, and tactical boardgame combat. Now, it sounds like the 4E designers are taking the game in the exact opposite direction of what I would want. And yes, I do realize that a lot of players love the aspects of the game that I find tiresome.

I would really love it if 4E was a great game and a great success for WotC. But at this point I've gone from cautiously optimistic to... concerned, I guess.