D&D 4E Are the 4E previews like turning it up to 11?

[Morrus]

They were months away from finalizing the PH prior to 3E as well, and yet I distinctly recall running a "2.5E" campaign in Spring of 2000 based on the data I got from a certain "D&D 3rd Edition News and Information Site," run by some guy with the initials E.N.

Not two weeks after the announcement you weren't. Let's dial back the hyperbole a bit, please, folks.

 

[Jer]

There are nearly 1000 densely written pages in the 3E core books on a game system that quite frankly, had practically every element of it rewritten and redesigned. The only thing they really kept from 2E to 3E was using a D20 for rolls and the names (and some other continuity) of some classes / spells / items. 3E and 2E mostly only have DND-like flavor in common.

Actually, I want to take issue with this statement. A LOT of 3e was just a "straight port" from 2e - they worked pretty hard to keep spells at the same level (even when they should have been re-levelled), to keep monsters pretty much the same as they were in 2e (even when they should have been completely re-built), and to keep magic items working pretty much the same as they worked in 2e (even when they should have been re-designed). This made "porting" from 2e -> 3e seem pretty easy, because your Nth level Fighter's gear could be mostly the same, your Nth level Wizard's spells could be mostly the same, and the monsters that a DM had to use in an adventure were mostly the same - you just had to get used to the fact that their abilities worked differently, but you knew what abilities those monsters had.

The 3.5 revision seemed to be an attempt to clean up some of the inconsistencies that cropped out of the "straight port" bit of the edition change. Nothing fundamental to the game changed from 3.0 -> 3.5, but some things that didn't work got fixed, some things got clarified, and some new systems were introduced to try to compensate for the fact that the 2e -> 3e conversion of some things didn't work out quite the way it was thought that they would. The most glaring example of the latter is the change in how magic weapons worked on monsters - 3e used the 2e system of having monsters immune to weapons below a certain "plus" - but higher plusses on weapons are less useful in 3e than they were in 2e because of the underlying math - so they tried to change it and gave us the "materials" vulnerability that we all know and love (or loathe).

I suspect that 4E will have fewer redesigns than 3E did. A lot more than between 3E and 3.5 (which although extensive, were not heavily mechanical in nature), but probably a lot fewer than between 2E and 3E (which were both extensive and nearly all mechanics were changed).

I think that this is true, to a degree, which is why I'm not so worried about playtesting either. They've been using 'per encounter' mechanics in Star Wars Saga, in Tome of Battle, for the warlock class, for the binder class from Tome of Magic, and for the "reserve feat" mechanism from the most recent Complete books. Each of these pieces will contribute to to edition change. Likewise monsters - it's pretty clear that Monster Manual V was the testbed for their new monster design philosophy, and that seems like a solid product.

It really does sound like 4e is going to be more evolutionary than revolutionary. The things that they're talking about incorporating into the new game are things that they've been putting in 3e for a while now. It may look like a vast sweeping change, and it's certainly in Wizards best interest to make it seem like a vast sweeping change, but from everything they've actually released so far it sounds like its been clearly built on the backs of everything that has gone before.

 

[Jack99]

It seems to me, and I could be wrong ofc, that some people seem to consider it a god-granted right to get previews and info ahead of time.

I mean, when you wait for a computergame, do you expect getting a free demo of it, before release?

When you are waiting for the new G. R. R. Martin book, do you expect to get multiple free chapters, so that you can better evaluate if you want to buy the book?

I realise that a game isnt a computer game or a book, but honestly, it is not so far off.

Just because WoTC released X amount of info 8 years ago, doesnt mean they will leak the same amount over the next year. Given the way some people react to anything that comes out regarding 4e, I for one cant blame them for not wanting to send out anything big until it is 110% sure not to be changed.

Thats why I think we will be seeing these types of leaks til after the external playtesting is over.

Cheers

 

[wedgeski]

I was mocking those people who support WOTC by saying they don't want to release 4E info so that competitors get a jump on them or release a competing edition before 4E goes to press. I was sarcastically comparing that idea to the Creature Collection from Sword and Sorcery Studios. Well it may have made history as the first non-WOTC 3e product, but it certainly had a lot of errors and likely had little impact on sales of the real MM.

Ah. Missed your sarcasm there, then.

Personally, I'm not concerned, for the same reasons as others in this thread. 3ed was a massive overhaul and 4ed doesn't appear to be. Not only that but Wizards have been using several products over the course of the last couple of years to judge the quality and response to a lot of the concepts now finding their way into 4ed. 'Now' seems about the right time for non-Wizards staff to get their grubby mits on the game, giving us around six months of external playtesting. Sounds about right.

That, plus the entire RPG landscape is very different now. The uncertainty that WotC must have felt at releasing the 3rd Edition is a thing of the past. They know exactly how big their market is for 4ed, I'm sure, and the value of leaking tantalising tidbits is much less now than it was in 2000. Plus, with their own, much stronger web presence, it's hardly a surprise that they want to encourage traffic to wizards.com rather than the web site of some upstart's '3rd Edition News' reportage.

 

[Gundark]

On playtesting 3E: "In the early days of the 3E project they decided to throw as many beta testers at it as they could find, and over the past months there have been literally hundreds of testers and thousands of pages of comments, as well as a brutal discussion/development board. While new beta testers are no longer being accepted, the existing groups are still plowing away at the latest revision. If nothing else, 3E will be the most-tested RPG ever produced."

And yet we still got the 3.0 haste spell??

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually, I want to take issue with this statement. A LOT of 3e was just a "straight port" from 2e - they worked pretty hard to keep spells at the same level (even when they should have been re-levelled), to keep monsters pretty much the same as they were in 2e (even when they should have been completely re-built), and to keep magic items working pretty much the same as they worked in 2e (even when they should have been re-designed). This made "porting" from 2e -> 3e seem pretty easy, because your Nth level Fighter's gear could be mostly the same, your Nth level Wizard's spells could be mostly the same, and the monsters that a DM had to use in an adventure were mostly the same - you just had to get used to the fact that their abilities worked differently, but you knew what abilities those monsters had.

The devil is in the details.

Sure, they left a bunch of spells and items and monsters at the same "level" (i.e. they kept the DND flavor), but they then either nerfed or beefed them up to make them balanced.

For example:

Invisibility went from 24 hours duration to 10 minutes per level duration. Same level spell, but a lot shorter duration.

Cloak of Elvenkind went from 90% to 100% auto-hide to a +10 to a Hide skill.

+1 magic weapons no longer are needed for creatures that need magic weapons to hit, but the damage is often lowered by 5 or 10 (i.e. DR). The item is the same for +1 to hit and +1 damage, but it no longer is needed. A standard non-magical weapon will work against DR.

Wights and Wraithes now have two saves versus their level draining as opposed to zero saves. Same monsters. Same basic level. Totally revamped mechanics.


Quite frankly, I cannot think of a single spell or item or monster that works identically from 2E to 3E. There are almost always changes, even if they are considered minor. There are probably some where it is identical, but those would be the exception as opposed to the rule.


And quite frankly, that is why the conversion document failed so bad. There were so many mechanics and other changes and many of them were not minor.

 

[Umbran]

Sorry for the rant but I am tired of being sold the "Wonder" in Wonder Bread when all I want to do is make a sandwich.

Yeah, but since when you you get to make a sandwich without first buying the bread?

We are several months out from the release yet. Of course you aren't getting anything concrete yet - concrete comes with the actual rules. Patience, Grasshopper.

 

[gizmo33]

I mean, when you wait for a computergame, do you expect getting a free demo of it, before release?

IMO not a good analogy. DnD is a development environment, and those do get released in early beta versions. In fact, when it comes to standards definition there's usually a broad set of people involved in the process.

Why? Because people are using DnD to develop their games. DnD is not the game, the game is people's campaigns and adventures. With so much invested I think people are understandably interested in what is going on to a level of detail that you don't have with computer games, etc.

I realise that a game isnt a computer game or a book, but honestly, it is not so far off.

Yes it is far off IMO, given the amount of preparation I do. I've never "house ruled" anyone's novel. I can take someone's video game or novel home and consume it as it was meant. I can't take the DnD PHB home and do anything with it until it interfaces with people's ideas about settings, character's etc. WotC IMO needs to understand that it is relying on it's players and DMs to give it life, it's collaborating with us in a way that you don't do in these other instances. I really think it would be a bad idea for them to treat us like a passive audience.

 

[broghammerj]

Yeah, but since when you you get to make a sandwich without first buying the bread?

We are several months out from the release yet. Of course you aren't getting anything concrete yet - concrete comes with the actual rules. Patience, Grasshopper.

The emphasis I use on wonder is to make a joke because right now all we are being sold is wonder. I know little to nothing about the bread I am supposed to buy. Is it vitamin fortified, wheat, white, rye, etc.

If you look at my above example we were getting concrete info a year before release. Besides if all of these WOTC books are so called previews, why not confirm a few facts? So far no one has convinced me why this would cause any harm. As for wetting my appetite with a preview, how about giving me a taste of the cheese instead of telling me that the cheese taste great.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Option#3 Well the accusations of lying seem somewhat based on the current actions of the company. Again if details may change so dramatically then I have reservations about the game quality. How can it be so wonderful and fix all of 3.5 if it hasn't been fully developed. All the hype reminds me of the curative powers of snakeoil.

It would also be instructive, of couse, if we could see an example of one of these "false" accusations of lying?