D&D 4E 4e - Too much change?
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
mxyzplk said:
Yep, and I'm not happy about it either, but that only means WotC (and other 4E publishers) won't see any of my money from that point on.
Of course, it probably also means I can kiss the hopes of finding new D&D players pretty much good-bye here. :\ Remains to be seen, though.
Lurks-no-More
First Post
It seems like too much change now, because 2e, and to a lesser extent, 3e weren't quite enough change. The game stagnated when RPGs went on.
As for the worries about the wizard ceasing to be a generalist... well, I think wizard has been, especially at the high levels, too much of a "do anything that other classes can do (except heal), and likely better" guy.
The Races & Classes info from our Hungarian source says wizards will be focusing on evocation and illusion, with necromancy and enchantment nerfed. Some transmutations are gone, others remain; and a lot of what was previously ordinary spells will become rituals. Also, given that the wizard role is going to be a battlefield controller, I'm expecting them to have a lot of conjuration effects, to deny areas, block movement or sight, and so on.
Although that doesn't sound like a "do anything" guy anymore, it does sound like a generalist to me.
As for the worries about the wizard ceasing to be a generalist... well, I think wizard has been, especially at the high levels, too much of a "do anything that other classes can do (except heal), and likely better" guy.
The Races & Classes info from our Hungarian source says wizards will be focusing on evocation and illusion, with necromancy and enchantment nerfed. Some transmutations are gone, others remain; and a lot of what was previously ordinary spells will become rituals. Also, given that the wizard role is going to be a battlefield controller, I'm expecting them to have a lot of conjuration effects, to deny areas, block movement or sight, and so on.
Although that doesn't sound like a "do anything" guy anymore, it does sound like a generalist to me.
Wanderer20
First Post
I agree that this is no more D&D as we knew it in 1st, 2nd, 3.x.
This is a pseudo-mmorpg with mechanics of a strongly-affected miniature game, the ties to the old edition are just, as many said, inspiration.
Furthermore, I don't see less bookkeeping (sp?) or less complexity than before, and too many sacred cow were sacrified for the sake of change.
I'm sad, but it's true this will be remembered as "New Coke 2".
This is a pseudo-mmorpg with mechanics of a strongly-affected miniature game, the ties to the old edition are just, as many said, inspiration.
Furthermore, I don't see less bookkeeping (sp?) or less complexity than before, and too many sacred cow were sacrified for the sake of change.
I'm sad, but it's true this will be remembered as "New Coke 2".
Simia Saturnalia
First Post
Well, I slept on it.
I'm still down for 4e, but in the way I'm down for Arcana Evolved - it's a cool and flavorful d20 game, but it's not general-purpose. And I'm okay with that. I've got an ongoing hack of the L5R system into a grim urban fantasy game and a 'best of d20' E6 variant coming together for any campaigns that need a more broad and versatile rules offering.
Just means I can stop pretending to myself 3.5 is a generic fantasy rules set.
I'm still down for 4e, but in the way I'm down for Arcana Evolved - it's a cool and flavorful d20 game, but it's not general-purpose. And I'm okay with that. I've got an ongoing hack of the L5R system into a grim urban fantasy game and a 'best of d20' E6 variant coming together for any campaigns that need a more broad and versatile rules offering.
Just means I can stop pretending to myself 3.5 is a generic fantasy rules set.
Garnfellow
Explorer
I think this last round of news really challenges my status as a card-carrying 4e Agnostic.
Although Umbran is right to note that we are trying to evaluate things without proper context -- and, as with 3e, we should be taking every bit of news with a heaping sack of salt -- on the other hand, we really aren't in the same situation as we were back when 3e was coming.
2e, at the end of its reign, was broken and bloated, hauling around the weight of hundreds of supplements. In 1999 there were several competing game engines on the market that were mechanically stronger than 2e. TSR had gone dark for months. The situation was dire.
Right now, people have begun to see the limitations of 3e. I certainly think it's high time for a revision. Most of the problems with the system that have been pointed out by WotC designers and good citizens on this board -- excessive prep time, too much complexity for DMs, high level play, monster design -- are real issues. And there are a ton of supplements that have brought important new ideas to the system that should be incorporated into the core.
But the current situation could not in any way be described as dire. The need for a 4e right now isn't anywhere near as great as was the need for 3e in 1999. Yeah, those problems with 3e that I mentioned above are real, but they are not pervasive and they don't cripple the game. Many of them are corner cases that a DM would only run into if they, like MerricB, ran three sessions every week or only ran high level games or if they were a professional game designer.
For most people, 3e works just fine, most of the time. It's a fundamentally strong game engine. A revision that pulled the best ideas from the supplements into the core and cleaned up some of the worst problems would probably be welcomed with open arms by the vast majority of people on this board. I'd be in the front row throwing flowers.
But my problem is that, other than the broad, high level goals described by the design team, I am finding myself hating almost every single specific change I am hearing about, from the risible names to the total revision of the magic system into something probably very neat but also unrecognizable. When news of 3e was leaking out, there were plenty of things that sounded terrible along with things that sounded brilliant. I was probably 60% positive and 40% negative when they launched, and ended up loving 3e. Right now I am probably 80% negative and 20% positive, and that positive rank seems to be dropping lower every day.
(Topic for another thread: Is WotC Running a Disastrously Bad Marketing Campaign for 4e? Maybe we can't evaluate the system yet, but we sure as heck can talk about how the information has and hasn't been disseminated.)
To me, the changes that are being described sound way too severe for my taste. I feel like 3e needs a tune-up, not the major overhaul that is being described. I appreciate that the designers want to be bold and make deep changes to the engine. But I suspect they will fix some stuff but will also create many new problems that do not currently exist. So the game will go three steps forward and two steps back. It's not my lack of faith in their ability as designers; it's just the nature of something so complex. It took years of widespread play for many of 3e's weaknesses to be exposed and understood; I'm not sure that WotC's limited playtest pool is going to flush out those sorts of issues.
Whereas at this point, we have an unprecedented understanding of the 3e engine. Probably no RPG system has had more development and discussion than 3e. The 4e designers could have built on that knowledge base and done a spectacular tune-up. Instead, they are shooting for the moon with a radically new engine. While I certainly hope that this gamble pays off, the more radical the changes, the chances for a sweeping success diminish.
Finally, while I don't really give a crap about in-game canon, I do like that there has been a certain amount of continuity between editions. I did a revision last year of a WD module from 1980 (http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/Tizun_Thane.html). And while there was plenty of stuff that didn't translate (and no worries, thought I), I was very pleased to find that the end product very much felt like the original. Based on what I'm reading, I don't think I could perform a similar feat for 4e.
Although Umbran is right to note that we are trying to evaluate things without proper context -- and, as with 3e, we should be taking every bit of news with a heaping sack of salt -- on the other hand, we really aren't in the same situation as we were back when 3e was coming.
2e, at the end of its reign, was broken and bloated, hauling around the weight of hundreds of supplements. In 1999 there were several competing game engines on the market that were mechanically stronger than 2e. TSR had gone dark for months. The situation was dire.
Right now, people have begun to see the limitations of 3e. I certainly think it's high time for a revision. Most of the problems with the system that have been pointed out by WotC designers and good citizens on this board -- excessive prep time, too much complexity for DMs, high level play, monster design -- are real issues. And there are a ton of supplements that have brought important new ideas to the system that should be incorporated into the core.
But the current situation could not in any way be described as dire. The need for a 4e right now isn't anywhere near as great as was the need for 3e in 1999. Yeah, those problems with 3e that I mentioned above are real, but they are not pervasive and they don't cripple the game. Many of them are corner cases that a DM would only run into if they, like MerricB, ran three sessions every week or only ran high level games or if they were a professional game designer.
For most people, 3e works just fine, most of the time. It's a fundamentally strong game engine. A revision that pulled the best ideas from the supplements into the core and cleaned up some of the worst problems would probably be welcomed with open arms by the vast majority of people on this board. I'd be in the front row throwing flowers.
But my problem is that, other than the broad, high level goals described by the design team, I am finding myself hating almost every single specific change I am hearing about, from the risible names to the total revision of the magic system into something probably very neat but also unrecognizable. When news of 3e was leaking out, there were plenty of things that sounded terrible along with things that sounded brilliant. I was probably 60% positive and 40% negative when they launched, and ended up loving 3e. Right now I am probably 80% negative and 20% positive, and that positive rank seems to be dropping lower every day.
(Topic for another thread: Is WotC Running a Disastrously Bad Marketing Campaign for 4e? Maybe we can't evaluate the system yet, but we sure as heck can talk about how the information has and hasn't been disseminated.)
To me, the changes that are being described sound way too severe for my taste. I feel like 3e needs a tune-up, not the major overhaul that is being described. I appreciate that the designers want to be bold and make deep changes to the engine. But I suspect they will fix some stuff but will also create many new problems that do not currently exist. So the game will go three steps forward and two steps back. It's not my lack of faith in their ability as designers; it's just the nature of something so complex. It took years of widespread play for many of 3e's weaknesses to be exposed and understood; I'm not sure that WotC's limited playtest pool is going to flush out those sorts of issues.
Whereas at this point, we have an unprecedented understanding of the 3e engine. Probably no RPG system has had more development and discussion than 3e. The 4e designers could have built on that knowledge base and done a spectacular tune-up. Instead, they are shooting for the moon with a radically new engine. While I certainly hope that this gamble pays off, the more radical the changes, the chances for a sweeping success diminish.
Finally, while I don't really give a crap about in-game canon, I do like that there has been a certain amount of continuity between editions. I did a revision last year of a WD module from 1980 (http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/Tizun_Thane.html). And while there was plenty of stuff that didn't translate (and no worries, thought I), I was very pleased to find that the end product very much felt like the original. Based on what I'm reading, I don't think I could perform a similar feat for 4e.
Last edited:
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Garnfellow said:
That sums up my current opinion quite nicely.
I was down on the edition change when announced, improved my opinion as I accepted the inevitability and saw that the designers were interested in tuning up things that really could stand for improvement, and have subsequently had my perceptions become increasingly negative as I perceive changes that appear to be "change for change sake" or affect some of the flavor, continuity, or canon that make D&D D&D.
Obviously, we have much less than a full picture so many of the changes may make sense in context, but right now I'm not encouraged.
My only worry about 4th Ed is some of the races & classes it looks like they are dropping. Other than that I'm loving it. The combat changes - toptastic - the magic changes - toptastic - stopping the wizard being I-do-it-all - toptastic - dropping the rather lame and overwhelmed school system - toptastic.
Mostly though I'm digging the way they talk about the design decisions - it's all about the play. I was deeply "meh" when they announced 4th; expecting another lame stumble forward like 3.5 but everything they're saying about it has me stoked.
My prediction: 4th ed will be a roaring success. There will also be naysayers, but the majority of players will move over to the new edition and like it.
Mostly though I'm digging the way they talk about the design decisions - it's all about the play. I was deeply "meh" when they announced 4th; expecting another lame stumble forward like 3.5 but everything they're saying about it has me stoked.
My prediction: 4th ed will be a roaring success. There will also be naysayers, but the majority of players will move over to the new edition and like it.
Li Shenron
Legend
A'koss said:
Some* of these problems are edition accidents, such as the multiclassing rules. I would never say the new multiclassing rules, whatever they may be, are "not D&D enough". But other things like vancian magic, spell slots, clerical healing spells and daily-based resource management are what D&D is all about, in all editions. People who dislike the basic ideas of a game, simply dislike that particular game. I don't like the fact that WotC is going after people who liked other games at the expense of people who already liked those basic rules. I think it would be possible to make things optional and save both groups of people: the 3e sorcerer was a great idea for those who don't lke preparing spells!.
*actually ALL except save-or-die, weak low level pc, vancian and per-day
