4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Toryx]

My own thoughts based on what we've heard:

NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good. I don't mind bad things happening to characters, and I don't mind scary things, but this always struck me as too big a punishment. 3.5 made it less so, but still...it doesn't contribute to the fun of the game for me.

NO MORE (temporary) ABILITY DRAIN - Mixed. It sucks to have that happen, and the record keeping is a pain, but on the other hand, this seems to succeed in giving the characters a real source of terror without being as heavy on the punishment as level draining. It seemed like a good compromise. I won't miss it though.

NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Good. I hate spending a lot of time putting together a character and exploring it's development only to have it all end with one bad roll. When it happens in the beginning of a massive climatic battle it's not at all fun.

NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Skeptical/ Bad. I don't think they're getting rid of ethical alignments. Personally, I'd rather they dropped alignments as a mechanic altogether and just offer a paragraph or two or roleplay suggestions. Having an alignment mechanic at all, even a dumbed down one doesn't appeal to me at all. I'll either have to choose my DM more carefully than usual or dump it altogether.

SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Mixed. To me, it really depends on how the sneak attack mechanic works. I've never liked Sneak Attack in the past and I'm hopeful they made some changes to 4th ed. but I don't really know enough at this point to have a strong opinion.

FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good. There's nothing wrong with making game play faster and more involving for all the players as well as the DM.

FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Good, if true. I believe that the NPC and Monster set-up times are improved...and that's great. PC creation, I am doubtful about. It'd be good if it were easier...the one thing I disliked most about the skill system in 3.5 is how complicated it is to create characters at higher levels.

NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Best News Yet! Alas, I think they're going to weasel out on this one. If they drop the excessive amounts of Magic Items and especially the reliance on magic items to survive, I will be overjoyed. From little bits of offline rumors and hints in Insider articles, however, I think they've chickened out and backed away. Which means for me that if they don't lessen the reliance on magic items, that'll be the thing I dislike the most about the new system. I can hardly tolerate it with 3.5 now.

NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good. I'm so tired of the vancian system it's not even funny. I'm not sure the power system is a good replacement, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Neutral. I don't know enough about the new system to have any opinion here.

FOCUS ITEMS - Neutral- As per above. Not enough information.

SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Mixed. I like simplifying the skills so that there aren't so many of them (Athletics for Jump, Climb, and Swim for example). But I don't want the skill system as a mechanic to be simplified to the point where you hardly use them, and I fear that's the direction they're going in. I'd much rather see something more similar to Iron Heroes.

BASIC RACES CHANGES - Good. I've liked everything I've heard so far. I won't miss the Gnome at all.

RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Indifferent. I've only rarely used the published pantheons anyway. I prefer my homebrewed systems of religions.

ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Good. I'd far rather they focused on making core classes fun to play all the way through the advancement table.

EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good. I haven't heard anything bad about it yet. I hope they have a lot of racial and class linked feats.

PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Mixed. I don't mind it if it's to help people, especially beginners, design strong party dynamics. I will be very annoyed, however, if each role is required for a party. I don't want party design to be put into a box.

POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Good. I like what I've heard, and even if I didn't, I'd design my own anyway.

LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Neutral. I don't really care that much.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

It seems a bit of a cop-out to me.

There must be something within the game's mechanics, fluff, or players community that attract you beyond the name on the cover.

Lord knows I don't want to cop out. I'd say it's the fluff, the feel of the setting that attracts me the most, be that setting, Eberron (which I'm quite taken with), FR, or Greyhawk. I've never felt the same draw from other Fantasy RPG's I've dabbled in.

 

[outsider]

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good.
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Good.
3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Good.
4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Bad.
5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Good.
6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good.
7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Good.
8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good.
9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good.
10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Undecided. Will have to get a good look at the implementation.
11. FOCUS ITEMS - Good in theory. Will depend on the implementation.
12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Undecided. Depends on implementation.
13. BASIC RACES CHANGES - Good.
14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Bad.
15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Good.
16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good.
17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Good. No matter what people say, these roles have always existed in D&D. They are just trying to give them the tools they need to do their jobs this time around.
18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Good.
19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Bad, but probably neccessary.

I have to ask:

To those who vigorously welcome more than half the changes 4Ed seems to be ushering in...

Why were you playing D&D in the first place when there are other FRPGs out there that have so many of the features you're looking for?

Because despite the flaws, D&D does a better job of the dungeon delving, monster slaying playstyle than those other games. When I want to play a game of courtly intrigue or some other fantasy story, I use a different system. When I want to dive into a dungeon and slay some dragons, I play D&D. Most of the changes seem like they are going to make dungeon looting and dragon slaying more fun, thus I welcome them.

 

[Greg K]

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good.
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Bad
3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Neutral (leaning towards bad). I need more information
4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Bad.
5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Bad. Somethings should not be crittable (e.g., incorporeal)
6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good unless it affects verisimilitude.
7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Neutral. Some of the solutions (e.g., skill consolidation), I don't like. I am also unsure about the things like elite opponents
8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good.
9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good and Bad. I'm all for getting rid of Vancian, but I don't like going to per encounter. I'd prefer something along the lines of Elements of Magic (Revised or Mythic Earth) or a spell point system.
10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Undecided. Will have to get a good look at the implementation.
11. FOCUS ITEMS - Good in theory. Will depend on the implementation.
12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Very Bad. As a DM, I wouldn't mind an optional method for creating NPCs. As a player, I dislike the consolidation. If skill points are removed, I"ll boycott 4e just like I did Star Wars: SE.

13. BASIC RACES CHANGES - Bad. I like the Elvish split. Everything else, I dislike. If anything, what I wanted them to change, they didn't. I wanted the designers to remove the non-biological features from race and introduce environmental/cultural (e.g., forest, mountain, nomad, swamp, underground) skill packages to make it easier fpr DMs to customize races for homebrews or represent a character that grew up with another race/culture.

14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Good. If they are not using Greyhawk or FR as the default setting, I say goodbye to racial pantheons and don't let door hit them on the ass as they leave. I prefer to have either one creator deity or various existing deities in the pantheon as creators.
15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Mixed. With rare exceptions, I disliked PrCs. I preferred class variants per the phb under customizing characters.
16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good.
17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Bad
18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Neutral.
19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Bad.
20. NEW PALADIN SMITES- Very Bad. The one that allows you to strike an opponent and heal an ally was lame in ToB:Bo9S and still lame.
21. BLEEDING ABILITY- Very bad. Extremely lame.
22. PARAGON PATHS and EPIC DESTINIES- Need more info/leaning towards bad. They sound just as bad as PrCs.
23. Fluff for the new settings: Good. However, I felt 1e and 2e had good settings and not so great mechanics. With a lot of the new mechanics and changes, I think WOTC is heading back in this direction, but they will be saved from falling that far back by several of the underlying 3.x mechanics that they retain.
24. Removal of the Great Wheel. Good if they reintroduce the idea should they release a Greyhawk setting.

 

[Nareth]

Not sure if this has been touched on or not, but Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved did not use an alignment system at all. This did not take away from the playability or fun of the game/setting. On the contrary, now characters had to have more of a reason to join forces than just "Well, you're Good, I'm Good, let's go kill some orcs.". It also created some very interesting group dynamics and interaction. I'm not saying that 4e should necessarily go this way, but if they did, it wouldn't be the end of D&D. It would just be a step toward a change. And, if that is the case, then individual DM's can house-rule an alignment system of their liking to fill the void.

I always found the alignment system to be a bit limiting. 3.0 and 3.5 helped with this, but when your alignment shifts due to an action you take, and that affects your abilities or powers, it's too much of a limit on what you can do.

Anyway, just my 5 cp's (Adjusted for inflation)

 

[Hussar]

Thanks to previous posters for generating the lists:

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - FANTASTIC. Never used it. House ruled it out back in 1e and through 2e.
2. NO MORE (temporary) ABILITY DRAIN - Good. Much rather a straight up penalty than ability drain which just has too much paper work.
3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - FANTASTIC. Save or suck is great. But, save or die just means that someone will die more often than not. Much faster to just point to a random character and say, "you're dead". Same result.
4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Not sure if this is true. Ambivalent.
5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - FANTASTIC. Screwing over rogues is bad. Far too many common monsters were immune to sneak attack. No other class gets screwed like this. Even wizards against golems can still use summoning, buffs, and battlefield control spells. Rogues just suck.
6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - If true, I'm happy.
7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Good.
8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good.
9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good. Vancian casting has needed to be turned into hamburger for a while.
10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Ambivalent
11. FOCUS ITEMS - Seems ok. Ambivalent.
12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Ok, I guess. Although, lumping skills together just makes the skill monkeys THAT much better. Ambivalent.
13. BASIC RACES CHANGES - Ok. I've been pushing for yoinking the Tolkien races for a while and, my players rarely pick any PHB races anyway.
14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Fantastic. Why should races have one god while humans get a pantheon. Makes no sense. Much rather a single pantheon for a large area with different names for different cultures.
15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Ambivalent. I saw so few PrC's in play during 3e that I don't really care. Good I guess since they were so little used IME.
16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Ambivalent. I think the feats were fairly balanced in 3e for the most part. The numbers of feats never bothered me since I don't buy that many books. In other words, it didn't affect me, so I don't care.
17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Great! Finally the newbie player gets a cookie on what the classes are best at.
18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Now that they are putting a whole town+an adventure in the DMG I'm freaking happy! Bloody about time.
19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - GREAT! Fuggin's FANTASTIC. It's a new edition. Most campaigns last 1.5 years and most groups not much longer. Those with multiyear, multiedition campaign settings are the outliers, NOT the mainstream. It's about time that D&D recognized this and created editions based on how the game is actually played, rather than catering to a very small subset of gamers, who, like the designers themselves, have lengthy, stable campaigns and groups. 1e and 2e and to some extent 3e all tried to cater to the gamer group who played together for thousands of game hours. But, we know that's not how most people play. Let's actually have a game that reflects that.

Hussar[/QUOTE]

 

[Lanefan]

1. .......
2. .......
3. etc.

::grins:: Hussar, why am I not surprised that we disagree on almost every one of these on which we have a non-neutral opinion?

One of these days we have *got* to sit down over a beer or three and argue the night away...

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

::grins:: Hussar, why am I not surprised that we disagree on almost every one of these on which we have a non-neutral opinion?

One of these days we have *got* to sit down over a beer or three and argue the night away...

Lanefan

Amazing isn't it. We play the same game, for about the same amount of time and have pretty much opposite opinions on what makes the game great.

I'd say D&D is pretty safe.

 

[Gargoyle]

Amazing isn't it. We play the same game, for about the same amount of time and have pretty much opposite opinions on what makes the game great.

I'd say D&D is pretty safe.

I'd venture to say that even the people who most vehemently disagree on the boards would have a great time sitting down at the same table to play, and that's what makes D&D so great.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Actually the lore and legends are about staking a vampire through the heart with a wooden stake. It's a specific mystical weakness and I already stated I could get behind those. It's when any average joe can stab a vampire "in the heart" with a butterknife and score a critical for more damage that I find it well, not to my tastes. No vampire lore supports that.

You and others are assuming that a critical still means 'hits someone in a vital organ', but that never really worked as a description (I crit him with my dagger! 6 pts! 130hp fighter shrugs).

It seems much more likely that a critical is going to represent the attacker making an optimum attack with his weapon - getting his slice or thrust just perfect etc.

Similarly, sneak attack on corporeal undead seems fine, as we don't have to consider it to be striking vital organs as much as vital body parts - and for zombies that it most likely to be joints (knees, elbows, neck). A zombie that has run out of hit points might still be filled with 'unlife', but just thrashes around on the floor unable to move.

Cheers