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

[TwinBahamut]

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.

First, I'll disagree that THAC0 and BAB are identical, simply because they are reversed. If they didn't change anything, then they would still be usig THAC0. Also, my main point is that what they did keep the same, the fact that different classes get different progressions, is actually a source of severe problems, since then classes get more and more unbalanced the farther they climb in level. Changing the mechanic to a unified progression is a change, and is an improvement.

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."

I don't play in the Realms, so I won't comment on the changes they are making to it.

My justification for using new flavor, even if it is bad flavor, is that newness is always good. New ideas are inherently better than old ideas, simply because they offer a new opportunity for inspiring someone. Also, it is impossible to see if new flavor works well or not unless it gets developed and tried, and I think the potential benefit of getting a good new idea outweighs the potential harm of getting stuck with bad flavor.

 

[Minicol]

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.

Yes, your point is valid for the rules aspect. But at the time, there was fairly little background written, and it did not change (much).

 

[Minicol]

For a while I thought this, but after hearing the wizard change, ... no. This, IMO, is the final nail in the coffin. The wizard is no longer a generalist but a video game character. I remember a wizard that sounded like this. It was in a classic video game, 4 player, the wizard threw spells, the fighter/barbarian type threw axes, there was something like a rogue and something else. Each one was in a different color. I think the rogue type was in green (maybe blue). Wish I could remember the video game's name. But yea everyone ran around in a dungeon and the view was from straight up.

sounds like "Gauntlet"

 

[Stalker0]

I'm still shocked at some of the assumptions I am seeing in people's opinions.

People are talking about Wizards now being mere artillery pieces with no other spells. BASED ON WHAT?!!!

As far as I've heard, Wizards will still have many of the same spells they use too. And until we get our hands on a few wizard spells (and unless I'm mistaken none have been released yet), there's no point in such wild speculation.

Frankly, anyone who says that they will never consider the new edition is just blowing smoke at this point. Likely they'll take a look at the phb when it comes out, decide if they like it, and then buy it or not.

As for too much change, you can never have too much change if it makes things better. People get used to a way of doing things, and they think that's the best way until they actually see something better. 4e may be the same way. All of these changes seem daunting, but until we see them in action we won't know if they are better or not.

 

[Li Shenron]

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 agree totally. It feels to me that 4e is a game on its own. It will probably work great, but it's so different from 3e in both how the game works and the style, that I have no particular reason to consider switching to 4e than I have towards Iron Heroes, C&C, Midnight, Rolemaster, Exalted or any other RPG system.

I am not expert of previous versions of D&D, I've played both OD&D and AD&D but too short to get a clear picture of the game style, so please take these with a grain of salt... My feeling is that every edition has its own style. Maybe OD&D has a style where lots of things are undefined (e.g. all weapons do same damage) and compensating with your imaginations is a huge part of the game experience. 2e seemed to more characterized by restrictions, and most decisions happened at character creation. 3e introduced the concept of "character builds", magic items christmas trees, and strongly linked rules with flavor.

So it's not wrong at all that 4e will be a different game experience as well. But frankly, I cannot ignore that the differences are so many at once, that the shift is more abrupt than ever before. It feels like the designers aren't thinking it terms of "we are the developers of D&D" but rather "we are the developers of the most popular RPG around" (both of which are technically correct of course*): so everything is allowed, even turning the game into Vampire or Gurps (not that it's going to happen!), because anyway people will buy it just because of the name.

*The difference is that if you think in terms of being a developer of D&D, you have in mind that you are trying to do a service to D&D and its players first and foremost. You may want to fix some problems, open new options, attract more followers... But not lose the old followers to get totally new followers, just because they will be 10% more (and nota that for new followers, D&D is just another RPG, so they may go as easily as they come).

I like making a comparison with sports. I don't know what is the most popular sport in the US, but let's imagine it's basketball. It's a bit like being in charge of the association which controls the rules of basketball, and thinking that because in another continent lots of people like soccer, it's ok to add goals and kicks to basketball, and since we own the rights to still call it basketball, it must be so. But the games doesn't remain the same.

 

[Li Shenron]

As for too much change, you can never have too much change if it makes things better.

I disagree. Would you turn every bicycle into a motorbike because it goes faster?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Heh. A lot of the recent "Doom and Gloom" is based off of "Races and Classes". This is a dead tree product, finished weeks ago, before the PH was pushed back. Our only source is a paraphrase by a non-native English speaker. The book itself is handwavey and non-crunchy.
We've known for WEEKS that Illusion, Enchantment and Necromancy were being nerfed. The wizard is getting a niche. Yes, this is an experiment. WOTC is also LISTENING. Dragon's Tail Cut, Out. FR Deitiy Mess, patched a little. We are moving clouds. I have a feeling this was the PH delay reason. Tweaking the tone of the edition.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I like making a comparison with sports. I don't know what is the most popular sport in the US, but let's imagine it's basketball. It's a bit like being in charge of the association which controls the rules of basketball, and thinking that because in another continent lots of people like soccer, it's ok to add goals and kicks to basketball, and since we own the rights to still call it basketball, it must be so. But the games doesn't remain the same.

Bad analogy. I disagree with your point, however using Football as analogy would be better, as you keep the name the same and move it from Amercian Football to Footbal (American Soccer).

I however think this is more like adding a Designated hitter rule to baseball. Maybe adding a 4th base to the infield.

 

[A'koss]

So it's not wrong at all that 4e will be a different game experience as well. But frankly, I cannot ignore that the differences are so many at once, that the shift is more abrupt than ever before. It feels like the designers aren't thinking it terms of "we are the developers of D&D" but rather "we are the developers of the most popular RPG around" (both of which are technically correct of course): so everything is allowed, even turning the game into Vampire or Gurps (not that it's going to happen!), because anyway people will buy it just because of the name.

Funny, it seems to me WotC is actually addressing the many complaints about 3e I've seen on this board.

Christmas Tree Characters
Save or Die/Nerf & Campaign-problematic Magic
Weak Low Level Characters
Unbalanced & Unwieldy High Level Play
Stat Abominations
Useless Skills
Speed of Play
AoO
Grappling
Boring Fighter Classes
The Much Maligned Vancian Magic System
Dependency on "Per Day" Effects for Game Balance
Poor Multiclassing Rules
Etc...

Yeah, these things are going to add up. But I'd rather they tackle all these issues now, rather than putting in some half-hearted effort which would draw far more ire. IMO, some people should try and look at the benefits over the long term (again, assuming they don't bork it in implementation )...

 

[AncientSpirits]

As for previous characters, the devs mentioned that _converting_ them will probably not be possible, but recreating them obviously will be.

Why our group would likely wait a year-plus to start a new edition. The party is:
--gnome dragonborn archivist (ironic huh)
--druid hengeiyokai (an eladrin plant/animal cleric is not the same, since no wildshape, etc)
--vampire shifter rogue (sort of? no idea if vampire characters possible)
--changeling dread necromancer (likely not possible, since necro apparently nerfed?)
--human artificer (maybe with the new craft rules? he has liked making golems and ghouls too)

I'm not ragging 4E. I'm just saying even recreating characters will be difficult. At best, it's like new Starbuck vs. old Starbuck. And the fact that a few designers did recreate a character says nothing about how many others could not do so (if they'd wanted to).