4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Silverblade The Ench]

I was really lookign forward to 4th ed, as I loved the many great changes 3rd ed brought, but some things have popped up the have made me more ambivalent, sigh. Anyway, this is my list of pros and cons *from what I've heard*, please enlighten me if wrong

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN (sort of?) (Good)
   I'm nearly always a DM, rarely get to play, and while I like harassing me players' PCs, I don't like being mean, and I always felt level drain was grossly over powered, far too common, and wrecked characters needlessly. For instance, while COunt Dracula's cinematic apperances are menacing, and massively charismatic, they don't suck you dry just by touch, for goodness sake!
   
   So, removing level drain or at least, leavign it as a weapon only used by high lvl wizards (the 9th lvl spell) or very nasty undead, is good. It's *scary*, reserve it for appropriate things. Let lesser undead weaken strength or Slow or whatever
   
   
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN (Bad?)
   Ok, so Ability score damage is being removed? Guess going along with a "Star Wars Saga System" condition track? Meh, this seems...whimpish. I appreciate working out ability damage is a pain, but, it keeps the "scare" factor high. Poisons don't just leave you with a "skill penalty" etc, they really screw you up in different ways, that's part of the thrill actually. Where's the fear of a scorpion if it just gives hit poink damage or an attack penalty?
   
   This seems part of the steps that make 4th ed feel too cheap/easy sounding for my likes. I like "scary", but honest, believable scary, not "DM is a cheating rat!", you know, the bad DM who uses Deus Ex Machinas ways to screw over the players in blatant ways, rather than gives 'em believable, hard challenges (I hate the Tomb of Horrors)
   
   Removing level drain is fine, but, removing spells/poisons etc potential to mess with characters I don't like. 3.5 Poisons were good (if you adjusted the DC fairly for level, which I wish there had been a mechanic for, I just winged it, to keep it challenging at higher levels)
   
   I think this iwll be bad, but, maybe the "condition track" system they use will be good?
   Simpler/easier does not automatically = "better".
   
   
3. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS (Bad)
   4th ed is removing Law (neutral) and Chaos alignments, the "ethical" alignments.This change REALLY irks me. While many folk abused or went nuts over alignment, in the end, it is a great tool for quickly noting the *rough* ehtical and moral behaviour of a character, superb tool for a DM especially. Also, it sets the tone of a heroic, non-scuzzy-Earth setting...which is why I like playing D&D, not "Papers & paychecks* it's about heroes and villains.
   
   Long as folk remember alignment is just a rough guide for characters, not a straight jacket, it's fine, only for some planar beings is it almost an absolute: inevitables; fiends, celestials etc. Doesn't mean a devil won't break a rule, just means usually he won't. What's the big deal about that?
   
   Merely noting a hobgoblin is lawful Evil (LE), two letters, gives me as a DM a basic guide on how to run the NPCs. Removing that is...terrible.
   Good an Evil are real foccres in most D&D settings, they are NOT "Earth", fuzzy, "grey" "orlaly ambigious". Wishy washy morals don't fit in with most heroic campaigns or places where devils n' angels mess around. It's fine to reduce the importance of alignment in some settings, like Dark Sun, where it's less "heroic" and more "survival", but not most campaign settings, aslong as folk remember, where human-types are concerned, they are rarely ever extreme, it' sjsut a general tendency.
   
   Otheriwse, I hate this change and will retcon it back in if I buy 4th ed books.
   
   This also ties in with what I think is a bad way R. A. Salvatore is pushing the orcs in the Forgotten Realms. Orcs and drow are *EVIL*. Evil is not just "Mean surly", dwarves are mean surly, but they are innately "good"...Good and Evil are "real" things in D&D. You start messing with that and you end up with D&D becoming a "real world tactical combat simulation" by 10th edition.... I'm not saying individuals cannot be good, or, that some settings creatures are very different (like the orcs of Eberron's past who were not malign)...but I fear a trend of "politically correct nicey-nicey" is pushing it too far. I like film noir, and gritty sci-fi or fantasy, but I *like* D&D because it is about heroes and villains...do not mess with that!
   
   WTH wants to have angst over whether killing an orc was a good thing or not, round the game table most of the time? Nah you wanna kill the SOB!!
   
   So this change is very bad.
   
   
4. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING (unsure)
   It's not fun for a rogue to be gimped versus undead and constructs, so letting them sneak attack such is...useful. But it goes against logic. Some undead I can see having weak points, like the more "living" ones: vampires and ghouls. But not zombies (unles syou have a heavy slashing weapon), and certainly not incorporeal ones! Ok, pray tell me how you can sneak attack a wraith, eh?
   
   So this rule change I'm ambivalent on. Good to help players, but bad for game logic.
   
   
5. FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION (Good)
   Lot so of tweaks to the game mechanics will speed up game play, now this is very good, as I'm sure most of us know it takes too long to play 3.5 ed encounters!
   
   As a DM, making 3.5 ed NPCs is a nightmare, mostly because of the SKill/feats. By changing it to a Saga system skill set, it will make it sooooo much easier to create NPCs.
   
   Most of the rule changes I hear about this are good. Making anyone able to Disarm Traps is great, fine by me, there's nothing "magic" about disarming traps...or having a game stall because of no rogue...the rogue will still have plenty of skill slot so he's most likely to have the skill, so it's fine. Removing confirming crit rolsl, good! Less wasted time, more "NATURAL 20!" happy joy joy
   
   So this change seems very good.
   
   
6. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS (GOOD)
   My homebrew game has a lot of ancient, nasty magic items (if you can find/survive using 'em) but even so, 3.5 ed seemed to have so many, or perhaps I should say require so many magic items, it was unwieldy.
   
   I do hope they improve the power of artifacts/items of legacy, which in 3.5 frankly SUCKED, they were woefully underpowered. I only ever had 2 artifacts enter our games in the 21 years I've been the DM, but when they did...oh boy...*mushroom cloud* Artiacts should scare the snot out of players, I hope that is changed over 3.5, but have no idea if they are?
   
   Mechanics to make magic items are sounding interesting: no more feats or loss of xp, just "rituals/lot of gold". I like risk too a bit of risk making 'em would be fun.
   
   So, good changes it seems about magic items.
   
7. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING (Good)
   At looooong blasted last! The system they suggest: at will; once per encounter; once per day, type of choice, seems great.
   Also, with spell durations seemingly not having to be kept track of (they last per whole encounter?) it speeds up game play.
   
   Sounds good me!
   
   
8. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS (bad?) FOCUS ITEMS (Unsure)
   The removal of spell schools peeves me. I'm a huge wizard fan, removal of the schools "does my knitting in" as we say here, it annnoys heck out of me. The spell chool idea make sense to me.
   
   Making spell focus items: staff, wand, dagger etc, important, is an unknown quantity, I don't know if it will be bad or good. It could be fun, give casters new styles or it could be just a bad gimmick.
   
   So, I'm ambivalent on this at the moment
   
   
9. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP (Good?)
   If, big if, 4th ed goes for Star Wars Saga style skills, that looks to be cool, it's a much faster, easier to create character system (as said above). It also lets non-skilled folk be somewhat useful, instead of 3.5 where you either have to be a master, or yer useless!
   
   The 3rd ed change to opposed skills made the game vastly more balanced and fun, pitting PC against NPC, instead of the SAME percentage chance to see if you're rogue could slit the throat of an orc sentry, or a high lvl drow bodyguard (which was woeful!)
   New generations of players will never have to suffer the sillines of 1st/2nd ed proficiency and their skill checks, lol.
   
   This could be good if it's like Saga system.
   
   
10. BASIC RACES CHANGES (bad)
    This one change, removing gnomes and adding tieflings/dragoborn, represents what I think is the very bad trend 4th ed is doing: throwing out what D&D was in style. Now it seems, any weird race can become "standard", and that sets a very dangerous precidence, IMHO. If that goes on as D&D inevitably make snew editions, it could end up...clownish. Think about it for a bit...."Hey lets play invincible super hero thingies in new uber 10th ed!"
    meh :/
    
    If instead, they added a variety of races, but said speciffcally: "elves, humans, dwarves, halflings are the common races of D&D" it wouldn't be so bad, because, if players entirely new to D&D see exotic races, and make up games full of 'em, they'll miss out on the fact that exotic is best kept rare, or, not make up exotic millieu for these exotic people. the tone of the PHB, sets hwo new players see D&D. If they see "wierd creatures are the norm", I don't actually think it will be creatively good, it will just cheapen their use.
    
    I really hate folk trying to bring in drow, teiflings etc into my games, because the reaction in my home brew setting, from the average person, is to either kill these dangeorus creatures or run and get someone else to do it! You have to think of how such exotic folk fit into a millieu. They are fine in a suitable setting, say, tieflings in Planescape, but elsewhere you really have to ram it home they are "dangerous, scary foreigners". D&D is not Star Wars, it's fantasy full of nasty evil beasties. The average perosn is pretty ignorant of what goes on outside his town, so, wierd stranegrs are *dangerous* and not welcome, and for good reason, because if it looks like a dragon or devil odds are it WILL try to harm you!
    
    it feels to me like WOTC is trying to make their "Points of light" the de rigeur for D&D, instead of the Player's Handbook being neutral (which is oddly important).
    
    So I don't like this change

I think 4th ed will be good, mechnic wise. I just fear the "tone" of changes will cause a slow degrdation of the game's "feel".
Or am I wrong? *shrug*

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I was really lookign forward to 4th ed, as I loved the many great changes 3rd ed brought, but some things have popped up the have made me more ambivalent, sigh. Anyway, this is my list of pros and cons *from what I've heard*, please enlighten me if wrong

[*]NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN (sort of?) (Good)
I'm nearly always a DM, rarely get to play, and while I like harassing me players' PCs, I don't like being mean, and I always felt level drain was grossly over powered, far too common, and wrecked characters needlessly. For instance, while COunt Dracula's cinematic apperances are menacing, and massively charismatic, they don't suck you dry just by touch, for goodness sake!

So, removing level drain or at least, leavign it as a weapon only used by high lvl wizards (the 9th lvl spell) or very nasty undead, is good. It's *scary*, reserve it for appropriate things. Let lesser undead weaken strength or Slow or whatever

I agree on this.

[*]NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN (Bad?)
Ok, so Ability score damage is being removed? Guess going along with a "Star Wars Saga System" condition track? Meh, this seems...whimpish. I appreciate working out ability damage is a pain, but, it keeps the "scare" factor high. Poisons don't just leave you with a "skill penalty" etc, they really screw you up in different ways, that's part of the thrill actually. Where's the fear of a scorpion if it just gives hit poink damage or an attack penalty?

This seems part of the steps that make 4th ed feel too cheap/easy sounding for my likes. I like "scary", but honest, believable scary, not "DM is a cheating rat!", you know, the bad DM who uses Deus Ex Machinas ways to screw over the players in blatant ways, rather than gives 'em believable, hard challenges (I hate the Tomb of Horrors)

Removing level drain is fine, but, removing spells/poisons etc potential to mess with characters I don't like. 3.5 Poisons were good (if you adjusted the DC fairly for level, which I wish there had been a mechanic for, I just winged it, to keep it challenging at higher levels)

I think this iwll be bad, but, maybe the "condition track" system they use will be good?
Simpler/easier does not automatically = "better".

It seemed more trouble than it was worth. Pretty much anything that changed ability scores was a PitA to keep track of.

[*]NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS (Bad)
4th ed is removing Law (neutral) and Chaos alignments, the "ethical" alignments.This change REALLY irks me. While many folk abused or went nuts over alignment, in the end, it is a great tool for quickly noting the *rough* ehtical and moral behaviour of a character, superb tool for a DM especially. Also, it sets the tone of a heroic, non-scuzzy-Earth setting...which is why I like playing D&D, not "Papers & paychecks* it's about heroes and villains.

Long as folk remember alignment is just a rough guide for characters, not a straight jacket, it's fine, only for some planar beings is it almost an absolute: inevitables; fiends, celestials etc.

I've always felt that alignment is descriptive. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. However, if you disagree with your DM on this, then it's a problem.

Doesn't mean a devil won't break a rule, just means usually he won't. What's the big deal about that?

A lot. Who says lawful evil characters don't break rules? It's that kind of thinking that gives alignments a bad name. Lawful characters care about order. They follow some kind of code. This doesn't have to be your society's laws, however; indeed, some criminal organizations might be seen as lawful, even though they do not use the tired old argument of "we bend the laws to suit ourselves, but don't break them". The only reason it's called lawful evil is because "order evil" doesn't have that ring to it.

WotC has to deal with perceptions as well. If they keep telling us how to deal with alignment and it just bounces off, maybe it's not the presentation of alignment that's the problem, but alignment itself (with most gamers). Short of firing a lot of gamers, maybe they could try altering the rules and flavor to suit them... like by making alignment less important.

Merely noting a hobgoblin is lawful Evil (LE), two letters, gives me as a DM a basic guide on how to run the NPCs. Removing that is...terrible.

They're not getting rid of alignment. It's just that most characters can say they're "unaligned" now.

Good an Evil are real foccres in most D&D settings, they are NOT "Earth", fuzzy, "grey" "orlaly ambigious". Wishy washy morals don't fit in with most heroic campaigns or places where devils n' angels mess around. It's fine to reduce the importance of alignment in some settings, like Dark Sun, where it's less "heroic" and more "survival", but not most campaign settings, aslong as folk remember, where human-types are concerned, they are rarely ever extreme, it' sjsut a general tendency.

Fantasy tastes change. Worlds that are "shades of gray" (such as "A Song of Ice and Fire") are becoming more popular.

Otheriwse, I hate this change and will retcon it back in if I buy 4th ed books.

I *like* D&D because it is about heroes and villains...do not mess with that!

There are many ways of playing DnD. It does not have to be about heroes and villains, and I think it's a problem if you need a rule to explain how heroes behave.

WTH wants to have angst over whether killing an orc was a good thing or not, round the game table most of the time? Nah you wanna kill the SOB!!

From my PoV, even if most orcs are evil, some won't be. I don't feel like aura-scanning them constantly, either. If I find orcs doing bad things (eg raiding villages and killing innocent people) then I won't feel guilty for killing them.

[*]SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING (unsure)
It's not fun for a rogue to be gimped versus undead and constructs, so letting them sneak attack such is...useful. But it goes against logic. Some undead I can see having weak points, like the more "living" ones: vampires and ghouls. But not zombies (unles syou have a heavy slashing weapon), and certainly not incorporeal ones! Ok, pray tell me how you can sneak attack a wraith, eh?

So this rule change I'm ambivalent on. Good to help players, but bad for game logic.

Nah, I see the point. Lots of undead have weak points. Zombies have heads, vampires have hearts, and wraiths, being incorporeal, would be immune to sneak attack anyway!

[*]FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION (Good)
Lot so of tweaks to the game mechanics will speed up game play, now this is very good, as I'm sure most of us know it takes too long to play 3.5 ed encounters!

As a DM, making 3.5 ed NPCs is a nightmare, mostly because of the SKill/feats. By changing it to a Saga system skill set, it will make it sooooo much easier to create NPCs.

Hell yes. It'll wreak havoc with D20 Modern though.

[*]NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS (GOOD)

Again, hell yes! I wouldn't want to deal with risk-taking items though. If using an item incurs risk, I'll just sell it (or throw it away).

[*]NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING (Good)
At looooong blasted last! The system they suggest: at will; once per encounter; once per day, type of choice, seems great.
Also, with spell durations seemingly not having to be kept track of (they last per whole encounter?) it speeds up game play.

You wouldn't believe how much I hated figuring out how many minutes does it take to get from this point of the castle to that point. I'm glad to see durations eased up.

There's been talk about what defines an encounter. In Alternity, it was "anytime you roll initiative".

[*] NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS (bad?) FOCUS ITEMS (Unsure)
The removal of spell schools peeves me. I'm a huge wizard fan, removal of the schools "does my knitting in" as we say here, it annnoys heck out of me. The spell chool idea make sense to me.

Making spell focus items: staff, wand, dagger etc, important, is an unknown quantity, I don't know if it will be bad or good. It could be fun, give casters new styles or it could be just a bad gimmick.

So, I'm ambivalent on this at the moment

Same here. I'm not too sad to see spell schools go away, actually, but making items important makes me ill. +6 wands? Don't want!

 

[Hairfoot]

I'm beginning to feel that these sorts of concerns (which are also mine) will turn out to be totally out of context. I think we're getting something with a D&D chassis, but a completely new engine beneath the hood.

It will be like worrying over the decrease of magic items in Traveller, or sneak attacks in gin rummy.

 

[Khuxan]

[*]SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING (unsure)
It's not fun for a rogue to be gimped versus undead and constructs, so letting them sneak attack such is...useful. But it goes against logic. Some undead I can see having weak points, like the more "living" ones: vampires and ghouls. But not zombies (unles syou have a heavy slashing weapon), and certainly not incorporeal ones! Ok, pray tell me how you can sneak attack a wraith, eh?

So this rule change I'm ambivalent on. Good to help players, but bad for game logic.

In extreme circumstances, the assailants can be stopped by removing the head or destroying the brain. I will repeat that: by removing the head or destroying the brain.

Zombies have weak points! Iron golems have joints, animated furniture has joints, flesh golems have nerves or arteries or eyes, and so on.

 

[Hairfoot]

Zombies have weak points! Iron golems have joints, animated furniture has joints, flesh golems have nerves or arteries or eyes, and so on.

For me, the issue is not whether they have weak spots, but whether the rogue has learned them. Flesh golems and most undead, fair enough, but tell me where you'd attack an animated oak table with a dagger to earn a sneak attack!

 

[Wolfspider]

Zombies have weak points! Iron golems have joints, animated furniture has joints, flesh golems have nerves or arteries or eyes, and so on.

And an ooze? A cloud of sentient blood-sucking vapor?

 

[Khuxan]

You'd attack the oak table in the joints. If you slid a dagger in and twisted, you could break a leg off (you'd want a fairly sturdy dagger - maybe magical).

And an ooze? A cloud of sentient blood-sucking vapor?

No weapon is going to do anything against a sentient cloud of blood-sucking vapour!

It's not fair to invent a creature that should be immune to all damage, and then use that creature as an example for why sneak attack shouldn't do extra damage.

 

[Wolfspider]

It's not fair to invent a creature that should be immune to all damage, and then use that creature as an example for why sneak attack shouldn't do extra damage.

I didn't invent these creatures.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

May be specific individual types of constructs/undead will be immune to crits but I think the majority of undead/constructs should be vulnerable to them.

 

[Imaro]

Zombies have weak points! Iron golems have joints, animated furniture has joints, flesh golems have nerves or arteries or eyes, and so on.

You know what I don't undrtsand about this logic...do these "weak points" damage the creature in a more significant way than striking it anywhere else? I mean honestly...what does a vampire need a heart for, how is hitting him here any different from his arm? Same for zombies and other undead. They aren't living beings, they are animate through magical energy...I can subscribe to the fact that a physical attack can hurt them, I can even subscribe to certain undead having a particular weakness (like a wooden stake through a vampire's heart) what I can't subscribe to is that hitting an undead in any place is more damaging than what it already takes from physical attacks upon any other part of it's body. Otherwise how is an animate corpse with no muscles (skeletons) moving? It isn't physically possible, yet you're telling me you can "sneak attack" him by damaging him physically.