4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[xnrdcorex]

hmm

I disagree with everything the original poster thinks is bad.
I happen to like all of those changes.
I suppose that doesn't add much to this discussion, but I wanted to throw my vote in.

especially about alignments. I specifically DO want to argue the ethics of killing orcs. All my players do as well. It is intriguing, fresh, and more mature.

 

[Rechan]

especially about alignments. I specifically DO want to argue the ethics of killing orcs. All my players do as well. It is intriguing, fresh, and more mature.

Ultimately it comes down to how orcs are handled in your campaign.

In some campaigns, orcs are unredeemable evil humanoids. Even if you took an orc orphan in, and raised him in a good home, and gave him a pony, and fed him and loved him, he'd still stab you in the face when he felt like it.

In this case, it's better to just kill them all because they will never do good.

In others, orcs have culture and can choose right from wrong. They can be depicted as noble savages or just meanderthal-like, primitive but not inherently wrong.

In this case, it ultimately depends on the tribe and the individual orcs and what they're doing.

It's important to let the players know which is which. Otherwise they try to negotiate with the irredeemable evil guys, or commence genocide on the misunderstood pigmen.

 

[kennew142]

Count me as a guy whose very happy with the changes in alignment that have been hinted at. I expect to homerule that all creatures except for celestials and infernals (possibly folks with divine power) are unaligned. In all the years I've played D&D, alignment has been the one element of the game that has bothered me the most. In previous editions, it was so hardwired into the rules that it was hard to disregard. The ability to have unaligned characters in the core rules makes me very happy.

 

[Voss]

I disagree with everything the original poster thinks is bad.
I happen to like all of those changes.
I suppose that doesn't add much to this discussion, but I wanted to throw my vote in.

especially about alignments. I specifically DO want to argue the ethics of killing orcs. All my players do as well. It is intriguing, fresh, and more mature.

And you still can. The lack (or presence) of the simplistic alignment system that has haunted d&d for decades doesn't preclude an ethical debate about killing orcs, though it arguably isn't intriguing or 'more mature'. However, having been done to death, it certainly isn't fresh.

Of course, it isn't really fun until you max out the irony and kill someone else over it.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Ok. I'd never heard of a cloud of blood-sucking vapour, but my point still stands: It's not fair to use a creature that should be immune to all damage as an example of something that should be immune to sneak attack damage.
.

There IS such a beastie in 2nd ed! Crimson Death and Vampiric Mist, page 253/254 of the montser Manual (the latte rhardbackk book not the earlier compendium folder)


On other folk's points:

I find the tendency to have "Earth-like shades of grey morality", very bad. It's fine when it's applied to a *specfic* millieu, but too often it's just an excuse for ammorality, not actually actual good reasons, ie, Dark Sun, Thieves World, Cona's Hyboria, Modern d20 are fine for such things, but, it's nice ot have some sense of morality as a serious issue when you're going around slaughtering things...hm?

Give you an instance:
some years ago, Dark Sun campaign, gladiator character, PC of a pal, was a total evil psycho, he slaughtered everyone in an inn to get one NPC; poisoned it, set fire to it and hacke dup the survivors...I kept dropping hints of where that would end...but he was revelling in being a one man slaughter house...killing anything in his way...which made everyone hate/fear/run/attack him. Now that was fine it was HIS character if he wanted to play that way...but there are consequences. D&D is story telling made formt he work of ALL parties, not just a war game.

and when they left Dark SUn (long story, triggered by his slaughter at the inn)...and arrived in Sigil...his excessive carnage attracted attention....in the end, he took an offer of aid form an evil god...and thus...he became an NPC. I'd dropped hints that he was going to end up being carnage incarnate...and that's what occured, he became the god's avatar!

The player was PO'd and said the god had said he wouldn't take his character over...to which I pointed out, the god was a chaotic evil, lying, murdering, untrustworthy mass murderer, which even the other player had warned him of. Hoist by his own petard, sort of

In my games, morality and ethics have consequences. It's important. At least, as long as you take D&D as a RPG with dice rolls, and characters and story. It had better not become "WOW" drivel. Sorry to WOW players but much as I used ot love Everquest and DD&O, they are *nothing* like as good as an actual D&D PnP game, or even a good single player RPG like "Temple of Elemental Evil". MMORPG are not "MMORPG" because there's almost NO roleplaying, ever (from experience). Good tactics, godo fun, but not Roelplaying (much as I used ot love keeping taunts/shouts/silliness in RP style)

While alignment isn't a straight jacket, CHaotic Evil folk can keep their word, if they care about something for example. But if you thinka drow is trustworthy, haha! Only as trustworthy as long you are useful to them unmolested. Isntea do fhaving to write that down in notes, just having "CE" makes it easy to get a rough guess of actions. Also, in settigns where alignment IS very important, it is essential. I admired Planescape, where morals and ethics, philosophies, were *crucial*.
That's ANOTHER thing that's annoying me!

14) NO MORE GREAT WHEEL.
The Great Wheel of the Planes has been removed for 4th ed?
Bah, humbugs! says I. For "generic" campaign settings its great, easy way to link them too. Remove it and...well, WTH remove some of the traditions of D&D when they are iconic and work fine? *scratches head*.



Aye that's a good line:

Its just magic for people without imaginations

This is a FANTASY game. Ever seen an undead shambling around Glasgow? I sure ain't (well...maybe ) As an aside, I hate the "viruses cause zombie" rubbish. Humans die in 3 days without water including dumb virus infested ones...viruses cannot kill you quickly (unless you're splashed with large amount of pure viral culture and yer immune system does you in)..corpses cannot move viruses around (no blood moving), dead flesh the DNA etc breaks down rapidly so all you have is organic soup, virsues only work on living cells, etc. In other words, I *hate* the "Resident Evil" films, hehe. "The Omega Man", on the other hand is fun and logical.

Things do not have to work like the rational world in fantasy!. If a rogue has a special dagger, he could sneak attack undead...etc, long as it has some logic to the *mythological supernatural world of the game*.
-Example: Werewolves can just heal ordinary damage instanlty, but not silver: never seen THE HOWLING?

Evil beings in European myth are often hurt by silver/cold iron (Werewolves were not D&D "lycanthropes", instead they were shape changing demons and thus hurt by cold iron, it got changed for Hollywood) I suspect the cold iron they meant way back was magnetic iron, iron when heated loses it's magnetism, hence COLD iron, unheated magnetic iron: lodestone. Magnetic Iron is "magical", it's powers "mysterious".
-Chinese myths had differing weaknesses for creatures, like rice and bamboo, iirc?

Rather than see those as annoying game mechanics, forcing players to carry a golf bag of weapons, ugh, it should be seen as part of the story, and used appropriately. IE, if Peter Cushing's Van Helsing didn't research the weaknesses of vampires, he'd be toast! Same thing for PCs it makes the game *richer*.

 

[Spinachcat]

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN
   I am a mean bastard old school viking helm DM and I like temporary, but not permanent level drains. I houseruled "healing" from level drain back in the early 80s.
   
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN
   I do not like "ability drain" that adds math to my game. I like slapping a flat -X to totals.
   The SWSE condition track could be well modified to make poisons / ability drain effects to be quite scary to players and evocative of the monster's abilities. Whatever they do, I hope it is easy and quick to use at the table.
   
   Simpler/easier DOES = "better" at my game table
   
3. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS
   I have not heard any 100% confirmed reports that Law and Chaos are gone. That would be a shame. I am a big fan of alignment and I have ENOUGH other RPGs where morality is gray.
   
4. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING
   I am uncool on the Rogue = UberWarrior and Fighter = Damage Soak Schmuck that seems to be the design decision for 4e. I am okay with the rogue who can sneak attack most anything because he is the master of weapon targeting and weak spots. I am cool with zombies taking sneak attacks as the rogue slashes the part of the zombie that is most rotten or least holding together.
   
   However, I expect that incorporeal creatures / amorphous blobs will be immune when we see the actual 4e books.
   
5. FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION
   I am holding my breath on this one, but I sincerely hope that 4e is DM centered and gives us the tools to run the game with minimal time wasted on game mechanics. The unnecessary time and trouble of running 3.X drove me away from the game as a DM.
   
6. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS
   I like running Diablo style games with LOTS of disposable magic items and very cool signature items that show up in the campaign. I do not like +X items because they are bland.
   
7. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING
   Vancian casting is good, fun and easy. I have played many spell-point RPGs and those systems are NOT perfect and require extra pip tracking. I suspect many people who cry against the Vancian system have little experience with playing wizards in other RPGs. I am very glad that 4e is not going spell-point and I am intrigued to see how the at-will / encounter / day combo works in actual play.
   
8. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS and FOCUS ITEMS
   I am confused by no more spell schools. I wonder what style grouping they will do instead. The spell focus items sounds fine - we have been doing that in Tunnels & Trolls and RuneQuest for 30 years now and its kewl beans.
   
9. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP
   The D20 skill system was a mess. You spent your whole career trying to roll over 10. The strongest base human (STR 18) got a +4 bonus to roll his STR checks. Is Conan only 20% stronger than an average man? Castles & Crusades did a great job with the Siege Engine and SWSE looks like it did a decent job, but neither game fixes the D20 problem that your ability scores are not reflective of actual ability.
   
   I run OD&D and your badass STR 16 Fighter rolls a D20 under his STR to kick in doors which means unless I throw some modifiers, that door is gonna splinter 80% of the time. In D20, that same Fighter is a weenie who has to get lucky to open a stuck door.
   
10. BASIC RACES CHANGES
    It is obvious that 4e D&D is trying to brand itself as a non-generic product. Palladium Fantasy and Tunnels & Trolls have had playable monster races for 25+ years. They only add to the fun. And Gnomes will be in the MM as a playable race.
    
    For those of us who have home setting that will differ from the default PoL, this just means we have some extra work ahead of us. I am kewl with that because newbies will benefit from a default setting. As always, I hand out my own docs to players about chargen so their characters fit my game world.
    
    BTW "exotic races" only refers to the uncommon races in your game world. You get to determine what is uncommon.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

That's a bug, not a feature. One class shouldn't be able to do everything.

You don't know that. An article talked about siloing abilities such as phantom steed, making them available in addition to damage dealing, which indicates some utility will be still be there. We also know that wizards still have battlefield control, moving opponents around.

Yeah. From what I've gathered, the wizard flavor will be one of blasting, yes (but that's been a wizard staple from the very beginning), but also of pushing people around, creating walls of fire or seeping mires, and possibly turning them into stone.

The more focused wizard means that we're probably going to get more focused illusionists, enchanters and necromancers, which is a major bonus in my opinion. Using the current core RAW, the non-specialized wizard is no worse at necromancy as the necromancer, and has a greater breadth of possibilities, because of no excluded schools!

 

[Mirtek]

My point of view:

Good:
The new per Encounter / at will / per day System for everyone
Obviously more movement during combats
More combatants
More important terrains
The system being designed and balanced with a levelcap in mind

Bad
The fluff changes to many monsters
The impact of the PoL philosophy on the etablished campaign settings
The gamist approach without consideration if such a world is believebale while maintaining supsension of disbelief


Long story short: I like all the mechanical changes but dislike all the non-mechanical changes

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Its as up until now NO ONE played the game for the joy of the game. All those terrible, boring "dead levels" and no power-ups ever other level. How on earth did anyone manage to keep themselves interested in playing D&D? Ah ha, I have it. The players I knew loved role-playing gaming and loved playing their characters as part of an unfolding drama that they helped create. The fun was the joy of the game for the sake of the game. Everyone wanted a kickass character to be sure, but kickass meant more than just an assortment of whup-ass powers, kick ass meant a character who was tough, no doubt, but one that was memorable for what he or she accomplished in the context of the campaign.

Why do we need airbags in car? We drived decades without them, and I was always fine! I didn't feel unsafe when driving just because I didn't have it.

Why do we need TV? Centuries and millenia people lived without it - And they were able to enjoy themselves fine without it!

Just because things worked well doesn't mean they can't be improved on. Just because a lot of people were fine with something doesn't mean things shouldn't be improved for the benefits of others.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm relatively pro-4e but there are some things that seem too gamist to me. For 24yrs I have been involved in either playing (rarely) or DMing D&D from OD&D to 3.5e and have never seen a player have a problem when their character wasn't particularly effective against a certain kind of monster.

A rogue would suck at fighting undead but a wizard under high level would be useless against an iron golem. A warrior without a magical/silver weapon would be ineffective against a werewolf. I don't see a problem.

Is it really so unfun that a PC runs into a challenge that he cannot smite down. What if the rogue has to trick the golem? What if the warrior has to get his silver coins cast into a silver dagger when he discovers his foe is a werewolf? Every class should have its weaknesses and its strengths. If you want a character who will shine in every combat, play a combat orientated class. It is stupid that a rogue can find the weak spot on a vampire when they don't have weak points besides their hearts which unless punctured by a wooded stake isn't anymore vulnerable than anything else.

Oh maybe 4e is changig that as well. Maybe vampires should be more player kill-friendly. :\

This is the kind of stuff about 4e that bothers me. Everyone has to be equally effective most all the time in a combat situation. With all the "unfun" going around I am surprised that anyone played D&D at all for all the years between OD&D and 3e.

Its as up until now NO ONE played the game for the joy of the game. All those terrible, boring "dead levels" and no power-ups ever other level. How on earth did anyone manage to keep themselves interested in playing D&D? Ah ha, I have it. The players I knew loved role-playing gaming and loved playing their characters as part of an unfolding drama that they helped create. The fun was the joy of the game for the sake of the game. Everyone wanted a kickass character to be sure, but kickass meant more than just an assortment of whup-ass powers, kick ass meant a character who was tough, no doubt, but one that was memorable for what he or she accomplished in the context of the campaign.

The above is what bother me, in part, about 4e (3/3.5e too actually) but I am more behind it than not.

I have to admit that True20 and Runequest are becoming more and more my style. D&D seems to be becoming one gigantic action movie set in a dungeon. I know folks who played like that, but many of us did not and still don't. It seemed that in older editions of the game there was at least lip-service to versimilitude and a bone tossed in that direction from time to time. Now, the chant is "Its a Game why concern yourself with that?" Well if that's the case, just create a game where PC wrestle dragons with their bare hands, don't need weapons to decapitate a foe, where humans (without magic) fly at will, regenerate lost limbs, and where you can be as tall as my thumb and still have 20 strength. And in this game all the furniture is made of diamonds and clouds are made of cotton candy.

Why not its only a game?

Of course a DM could do this, but should nonsense be a part of the official rules and held up on a pedestal as necessary for fun?

Yup. This more or less sums it up for me.

Unfortunately, I will not be DMing our first 4E campaign. Or, at least that is what I told everyone. But, I might just have to create a 3.75 and DM after all.


The fact that all PCs are getting "powers" in 4E might just make it too much over the top (or video gamey) for me.

As an example in Complete Warrior, there is a Tactical Feat called Elusive Target. In it, there is a benefit called Diverting Defense.

This benefit allows the user of the feat to have one flanking attacker potentially hit an opposing flanking attacker.

According to the normal rules, the first flanking attacker cannot even reach the second flanking attacker, but he can somehow attack him, even though he cannot reach him.

It becomes more nonsensical if the user of the feat is Large, Huge, etc.


This type of "cool power" for the sake of being a cool power blows away my sense of logical consistency. It goes way beyond simple verisimilitude. Adding to the rules is fine, breaking them for a cool power is bogus.

I have found quite a few of these types of jarring problems in many of the PHB II and Book of Nine Swords abilities. I suspect that I will find many more in 4E.

Cool for the sake of cool and regardless of the other rules is for video games, not FRPGs. IMO. But, I understand that WotC is going to put in cool for the sake of cool, just to continue sales.

It's a damn shame that they did not have at least a few designers on the team specifically put there to throttle down the "cool trumps tradition and cool trumps logic every time" type of mentality.


The idea of every PC getting powers is fine within certain logical boundaries. The implementation, I suspect, will not be fine because from what I have seen in recent books, the designers really don't seem to care what they do as long as it is cool and/or powerful.

I too wonder when the game became "unfun" enough to throw out the baby with the bath water.