A Thread For Those Somewhere In The Middle

[Sammael]

I can't wait for the new rules set.

But a lot of the implied flavor, the monster redesigns and the DDI make me cringe.


cheers

That sums up my own thoughts nicely. I am enthusiastic about the rules. That's about it.

 

[Fieari]

Balancing monsters against a party that is "fully rested" via per encounter abilities has me excited, as challenging my party was always difficult before... either they'd use resources but the fight itself would be easy, or I'd have to raise the challenge, and it's always tricky gaging how far to go. So this has me really excited.

Having the math work out to level 30 has me excited, and I can only hope the do as much play testing at the higher levels as they do at the lower levels to ensure this.

The flavor... has me worried. I don't like flavorful names for what should be generic character options. I don't want golden wyvern whatevers, I want bland. When the default is bland, flavor can be added easily.

Removing, for most intents and purposes, the concept of spells... or at least spellbooks... that bothers me a lot. On the one hand, I agree that wizards shouldn't take the shine away from, say, rogues. On the other, taking away the concept that wizards can do anything if they just learn how... I don't like it. There are better ways to make the rogue more worthwhile, not the least of which is to make the rogue better than the level equivalent magic. Make spells usefulness the equivalent of a rogue much weaker than the rest of the party. That sort of thing. Weaken spells, buff the rogue.. don't take away spells entirely!

And yet, I'm withholding judgment, because I like the concept of niches... balancing with psionics in mind in the future sounds like a good idea, and if that means enchanters have to be weaker... well, maybe. I'll have to wait and see.

 

[MerricB]

I'm also mildly optimistic, but I worry about a curveball error/flaw to their logic that ends up ruining it for me. For instance, I worry when I hear talk of enabling fighters to have magic powers of healing at higher levels. Why would this happen for a character who is a non-caster? Why not just multi-class into cleric or another divine spellcasting class?

Do you remember where you heard that? I really don't want the fighter to have healing powers at higher levels.

Perhaps I should qualify that: I have a problem with the fighter being able to heal other characters. The fighter being able to heal - or shrug off - the effects of poison and other damage to himself at high levels doesn't bother me as much.

I also second the notion of worry about an annual player's handbook that includes once-core concepts! Why do I have to wait for mind flayer stats?! That is one of the first monsters I want to see in the new edition (since the BBEG is probably going to be a CR 18 mind flayer sorcerer) and them not being there means I can't convert my 3.5e campaign without doing my own conversion (which I hate doing).

My hope is that when I get the books in June is that I'll look at the way they've handled the monsters, races and classes and go, "Oh, they've done a great job there! I understand why they decided to wait to do the Mind Flayer and Bard... they wanted to do it right!" My fear is that such won't be the case...

Cheers!

 

[Sammael]

I understand why they decided to wait to do the Mind Flayer and Bard... they wanted to do it right!"

See, there is virtually no circumstance which would cause me to believe in that statement. I firmly believe that anything that ends up being left out of the core books is solely the result of their new marketing strategy - "everything is core."

I've never used WotC-style psionics in my games, and I've always made use of mind flayers. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from putting a non-psi mind flayer in the MM and then a psi variant in next year's MM2 - which is how it was done in 3.x, and it worked fine.

(and yes, I am aware that the mind flayer may end up being in the first MM, I am just illustrating a point)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some of what I've read about makes me happy, like the melding of overlapping classes. Some really ticks me off- the new list of playable races, Psionics still not being Core, the absence of core fantasy tropes like those represented by the Polymorph spells and several other things Li Shenron mentions above.

Just because something is simpler doesn't make it better. I loved playing In the Labyrinth, which only had 3 stats (as I recall) and you could make a PC in 5 minutes...but it wasn't D&D.

So, I'm sitting in the middle, and won't really make up my mind about the game until I have the Core books in hand to examine...

But I'm more worried about this transition than the one from 2nd to 3.X.

 

[Garnfellow]

A card carrying 4e Agnostic, here.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm a hard-line moderate. I'm pessimistically optimistic. I applaud the goals of the design team while secretly suspecting their agenda. I am intrigued by mechanical changes yet appalled by changes to core flavor.

I am confused.

 

[Fifth Element]

Some people think 4e will be the second coming of Gygax.

Some people think 4e will be more like a plague and a pox upon all that is good and holy.

Wait, these aren't the same thing?

I kid, I kid. A little.

Seriously, I'm leaning to the optimistic side, but I have to wait for the final product to give it a fair shake and then decide whether I want to convert. I think my biggest concern is the flavour for the new types of abilities (paladin smites, cleric healing on a crit?). If the in-game description of that type of thing is inadequate, I won't feel comfortable with them in my game.

Worst-case scenario, of course, is poaching the best stuff for my 3.5 game.

 

[Knight Otu]

There are bits that push me in one direction, and other things that push me in the other. I don't particularly care for tieflings without aasimar to "balance" them or the fact that monster rules and character rules are becoming more divorced. The tiering system seems like a pretty mixed batch. I'm not too opposed to reimagining monsters and races, but wholesale slaughter of some planar races to use their name for other things bothers me (eladrin may be a case, and archon apparently is. Guardinals are apparently going the way of the dodo entirely). I like the idea of wizards' implements and the presence of the warlord. The meaningful choices for each level and interesting things to do each round things sound good in theory.

Yeah, somewhere in the middle certainly describes me.

 

[Someone]

I applauded the designer's intentions when they talked about it in broad terms, but as more crunch in included my suspicion that they would not be able to accomplish them all is increasing - after all they promised a system that totally redesigns old tropes while maintaining the feeling intact, and is also simple and fast to play and learn while at the same time inclusive, full of options and balanced. Some of these things are contradictory, so the best they can do is to compromise - that means 4e won't be the best thing since sex, it'll be another D&D incarnation I'll probably enjoy as much as I enjoyed 2e and 3e.