4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Greg K]

I was just reading an announcement in KotDT that Paizo is planning on continuing support of 3.5, so there will be some continued "Classic" stuff to play, regardless of edition.

Yeah, but my big question is what changes will other third party companies like En Publishing, Green Ronin, Malhavoc and Mystic Eye Games have to make to keep their existing products in print and compatible with 3.x should WOTC pull the existing d20 license? Furthermore, if the d20 license is pulled, will the necessary changes be practical enough to implement to be worthwhile for third party companies to keep their 3.x products in print?

 

[Jayouzts]

Fixing what is not broken

I think the "good" vs "bad" analysis for these misses the boat. If you find the changes good, why not incorporate them into your 3E game now?

[*]NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN Fixes something that is not broken. If its a problem, why not publish an alternative rule. (They could release Unearthed Arcana II and include such rules as this).

[*]NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN Fixes something that is not a problem for me.

[*]NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS A day late and a dollar short. I have scrapped alignment altogether. While I am glad to see WOTC moving in that direction, I am not sure it goes far enough.

What the heck, I will say GOOD. It is Christmas-time and I feel generous.

[*]SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING Fixes something that is not broken. Its not unreasonable to allow it for undead. But why a new edition?

[*]FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION I will call this good but the devil will be in the details.


[*]NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS Good, i suppose. But isn't it the DM's responsibility to keep magic items at level which he is comfortable? I do not see a need for new edition to remedy this.


[*]NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING Ever hear of Spell Points? We do not need a new edition to fix this problem.

[*] NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS (bad?) FOCUS ITEMS The schools are not a problem. Focus items are nice fluff but not really needed.


[*]SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP Good


[*] BASIC RACES CHANGES I wont miss the gnome. I am indifferent to the fluff changes made to the dwarf and halfling. I think Eladrin and Tieflings are boring. I would consider the Dragonborne (I allow fire newts as a PC race so the Dragonborne may not be far off - as long as they are not half-dragons).

But why do we need a new edition for these? If you want to play in a setting with Tieflings and no gnomes, release a new setting.

I do not play Forgotten Realms so I will skip those


[*]Racial Pantheons getting the boot

Indifferent. Use them if you want

[*]No introductory cost on the core books
A poor marketing decision IMHO.

[*]Core price increase on all books with all books being same price without being same page length

Again, bad idea. But it does not affect me.

[*]Playtested less then previous edition (Bad)

Excellent point. Everyone remember the 3.0 Ranger? If they didn't catch the problems with all the 3E testing they did what is getting through in 4E?

[*]Elimination of Prestige Classes (Depends on if they're actually gone or just renamed into the new paths)

I think there are too many classes, Prestige and Standard. This does not appear to be changing. Bad.


[*]Effort to actually balance feats (Good)
Good on paper but the devil is in the details.

Although 4E may be good, I do not see it being better than my houseruled version of 3.5E. If it is not BETTER, I will not buy it. And if no one wants to play 3.5 anymore, fine. I will stop playing RPG's and focus on other hobbies.

 

[Scarbonac]

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good. It never made sense. Suddenly I forget how to use a bow or halberd because I shook Dracula's hand?
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Bad.
3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Bad. Bad things happen to adventuring scum.
4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Bad, although I like the "Unaligned" option, which is how I tend to play my "Neutral" charactes.
5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Bad. Some thing just can't be backstabbed.
6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good, if true. We'll see how accurate this allegation is.
7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - See above.
8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Unsure; I want magic items, I just don't want them to be necessary for my group's survival at a given level.
9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Undecided.
10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Undecided.
11. FOCUS ITEMS - Might work. We'll see.
12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Undecided.
13. BASIC RACES CHANGES -Very badwrongstupid. Basic game needs basic races; bring out the fancy-schmancy frou-frou tieflings and such in a supplement.
14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT -Bad, but barely tolerable.
15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Undecided.
16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Balance is illusory.
17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - No, just no.
18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Good. That's been pretty much the way things are in my games - lots of Wilderness with city-states, emerging nations and isolated racial enclaves dotting the landscape.
19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Badbadbad.

 

[pemerton]

there are some things that seem too gamist to me.

<snip>

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.

I don't know True20 all that well, but in the case of RQ verisimilitude is largely the result of its extensive action-resolution rules for both combat and non-combat situations. Whereas earlier editions of D&D, when it was less action-moviesque in tone, had detailed action-resolution rules only for combat, and even there GM moderation played a much greater role than in RQ. As a result those earlier editions depended a great deal on the GM to establish the feel and parameters of the game. 3E (and it seems 4e) have tried to shift some of that power from GMs back to players - hence the increasing gamism, I think.

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.

<snip>

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.

The issue that you don't quite address is this: where is "the joy of the game" if the player of the Rogue is sitting at the table for an hour (a plausible real-world duration for a D&D fight) having nothing interesting to do other than kibbitz, as his/her friends get to take a meaningful turn every round? That is the joy of watching one's friends play the game - which is not quite the same, and normally not quite as joyful.

OD&D and 1st ed dealt with this issue by giving every player multiple characters to control, via extensive rules for henchmen and hirelings, as well as having multiple PCs per player be fairly common. More recent editions and play styles have really emphasised one PC per player, and have removed henchmen and hirelings as a significant part of gameplay.

As for the Rogue tricking the golem - in the current edition of 3E this reverses the problem, with the other PCs typically having nothing meaningful to contribute, and therefore the other players having no meaningful participation in the game while the player of the Rogue resolves the trickery. It is to be hoped that 4e's changes to skills, and introduction of mechanics for social challenges, will deal with this to a decent extent, making a tricking of the golem a game experience in which all the players can participate.

 

[pemerton]

I think the "good" vs "bad" analysis for these misses the boat. If you find the changes good, why not incorporate them into your 3E game now?

Short answer: not everyone is as good a game designer as Mike Mearls.

Longer answer: As I see it, 4e is a working out of the implications for the game of certain changes made in the transition from 2nd ed to 3E, which implications were not fully appreciated at the time of the transition.

A lot of those changes (though by no means all) involved changing the fundamental dynamics of D&D play, from a system with fairly simple character-build rules and almost minimalist aciton-resolution rules which consequently gave the GM a tremendous degree of power in all aspects of play, to a system with complex characer-build and action-resolution rules which shifted power from the GM firmly onto the players.

One implication of these change at the character-build end: 3E makes it possible to build radically underpowered or overpowered characters if a player has a poor knowledge of the relevant game elements (feats, spells, PrCs, etc). As a result, new players can build themselves into a very poor play experience. 4e will try and rectify this to some extent (eg by explicitly calling out character roles, by balancing feats, etc).

One implication of these changes at the action-resolution end: By giving players so many choices, 3E makes combat take a long time to play at the table, and therefore makes it suck a great deal if one's PC is not able to participate meaningfully in a combat. 4e will try and rectify this to some extent, by making meaningful participation in combat possible for all characters all the time (eg by changing sneak attack, by changing the power suites of all classes, etc).

One implication of these changes for the GM: Apparently without really thinking about it (perhaps just following "common sense") 3E extends the character-build and action-resolution rules for PCs to monsters and NPCs. The result is big issues with prep time and play of GM characters. 4e will try and rectify this (with new monster build rules, not giving monsters feats and spells which require the GM to have intimate familiarity with the PC build elements, etc).

These aspects of 4e are all natural consequences of clever game designers reflecting on the implications for play of some key differences between 3E and earlier editions of D&D. They are not changes that are trivial to incorporate into 3E via house rules. And from the game design point of view, they seem to justify a new edition as well as anything would.

 

[Reynard]

The issue that you don't quite address is this: where is "the joy of the game" if the player of the Rogue is sitting at the table for an hour (a plausible real-world duration for a D&D fight) having nothing interesting to do other than kibbitz, as his/her friends get to take a meaningful turn every round? That is the joy of watching one's friends play the game - which is not quite the same, and normally not quite as joyful.

This situation is only plausible if the definition of "interesting" is "do hit point damage". I really can't muster much sympathy for a player that can't manage to engage the game in such a way so as to do more than sulk if they can't sneak attack the enemy. Worse still is the idea of changing the system to coddle this sort of player and define "unfun" as anything that makes the players actually expend some effort playing the game.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This situation is only plausible if the definition of "interesting" is "do hit point damage". I really can't muster much sympathy for a player that can't manage to engage the game in such a way so as to do more than sulk if they can't sneak attack the enemy. Worse still is the idea of changing the system to coddle this sort of player and define "unfun" as anything that makes the players actually expend some effort playing the game.

WotC are listening to their customers. That's a good thing.

 

[Conjurer]

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good, as long as there are other mechanisms in place to bypass HP as a way to threaten PCs.
2. NO MORE (temporary) ABILITY DRAIN - Good, as long as there are other mechanisms in place to bypass HP as a way to threaten PCs.
3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Yes, it's annoying to lose a character to a lose-or-die effect, but that's part and parcel of playing D&D, I think. However, if there still are other save-or-suck effects, not all is lost.
4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Good riddance to a pretty useless and polemic mechanic
5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Seems Ok to me.
6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - I'll believe it when I see it.
7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - I'll believe it when I see it.
8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good. I already favour low quanitities of magic items in my campaigns anyway.
9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - It's good that they're giving Vancian a rest. I still need to see the new system in action, though.
10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Depends. If I can still cherry-pick spells thematically linked and call myself a Conjurer (or Enchanter or Necromancer), then I won't care a bit. If, however, my spell-selection is going to be limited to blasting spells... well, I'm not going to be happy. I'm waiting on this one.
11. FOCUS ITEMS - Fewer, but more interesting Items? Yes!
12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Need to see it in action. Seems Ok, so far
13. BASIC RACES CHANGES - None of the important races are missing, so Ok. I can probably work a way to introduce Eladrins into my own homebrew. (Plus, my group played in my admitedly generic homebrew over a year without realizing I had forgotten about Gnomes)
14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Good. I already did this in my own homebrew.
15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Neutral. It seems we lose prestige classes but gain Parangon Paths. If I can still use the latter to give flavour to my homebrew, I'm Ok with it.
16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good. After all, some feats were next to useless before.
17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - As long as classes are not restricted into the roles I'm fine with it. The people making this game are not stupid, and they know players would resent the unnecesary restrictions.
18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Seems Ok. I might even borrow some fluff for my own homebrew.
19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Nothing I can't work around to introduce into my own homebrew setting, so far.

 

[pemerton]

This situation is only plausible if the definition of "interesting" is "do hit point damage". I really can't muster much sympathy for a player that can't manage to engage the game in such a way so as to do more than sulk if they can't sneak attack the enemy. Worse still is the idea of changing the system to coddle this sort of player and define "unfun" as anything that makes the players actually expend some effort playing the game.

In some ways I sympathise with your lack of sympathy. But not so much when it comes to D&D. In general, I prefer to blame the system, rather than the players, if the players of the system overwhelmingly refrain from "engaging the game" in a certain fashion. There are two main ways I know of for a player of an RPG to engage the game. In each case, D&D gives players reasons for focussing on the dealing of hit points to the exclusion of other in-game activity.

The first way to engage an RPG is via its action resolution mechanics. In D&D, these are (but in 4e perhaps may not be) overwhelmingly concerned with dealing hit points.

The other is via GM-moderated attempts at extra-mechanical "problem resolution". OD&D and 1st ed AD&D are the pre-eminent examples of games in which this sort of play dominates. 3E has expressly moved away from this style of play (which style of play is, in my view, principally responsible for D&D's reputation for producing adversarial GMing). Therefore it is no surprise that players of 3E do not attempt to engage the game in this fashion.

What other game systems do is open up mechanical space for engaging the game in a non-combat fashion, via all sorts of action resolution mechanics both simulationist and metagame. For various reason, D&D historically has not done so (one of those reasons might be the hostility of a vocal group of D&D players towards metagame action-resolution mechanics, and towards social interaction mechanics). If 4e changes this trend, then it may be that the player of the rogue will have a real (as in meangingful in the context of play) choice to trick the golem rather than sneak-attacking it. If that is so, then the changes to sneak attack rules will constitute an addition of an option rather than a concession to a lack of player imagination.

 

[Reynard]

WotC are listening to their customers. That's a good thing.

Which customers? While there's a lot of "hey, that's a good idea!" going on, there wasn't much in the way of clamoring for these changes. WotC isn't listening to customers so much as seeking new customers. Whether that will ultimately work out for them is up the air, and will be until 4E hits.