Blog post on the feel of D&D (marmell, reynolds et all)

[Gundark]

One thing I'm keeping in mind: He has first-hand knowledge of some things that we don't, and it's colored his opinion of the material he has seen so far. It could be that since 2002, the entire direction of the design staff has changed (as well it might, since two-thirds of them aren't the same people any more!) and the leanings he remembers has behind the scenes turned around completely. .

Which is maybe why some former WotC employees weren't included in playtesting

 

[BryonD]

3E: Everything is in the rulebooks, to the point where it gets tedious to look up the effects of Frightened for the 18th time in that fight. No fights over rules adjudication, but lots of time spent looking up rules.

Funny, I've been playing 3E since it came out and this doesn't remotely describe my experience. I don't believe that people who had these kind of issues with 3E will be able to generate the kind of game experience I want with any system. And if 4e is intended to cater to this position then that is strong reason to be concerned about the merits of 4e.

4E: This porridge is just right! Eliminate the rules that are tedious, streamline the system, yet create the framework needed for the DM to adjudicate unusual situations.

So we can't complain about Batman based on the trailer, but we can give it an Oscar based on the trailer.

 

[Shadeydm]

So we can't complain about Batman based on the trailer, but we can give it an Oscar based on the trailer.

This my biggest issue with many 4E fan(atic)s they seem to think its perfectly acceptable to call 4E the greatest thing since apple pie based on the 2% of the rule set we've seen but at the same time tear apart anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with the game based on that same 2%. Kettle, meet pot...

 

[shadowguidex]

Funny, I've been playing 3E since it came out and this doesn't remotely describe my experience. I don't believe that people who had these kind of issues with 3E will be able to generate the kind of game experience I want with any system. And if 4e is intended to cater to this position then that is strong reason to be concerned about the merits of 4e.

Making a special monster outside of the box requires a retarded amount of time to create (To make the follow the exact specified monster HD rules in terms of skill points, feats etc). Looking up the jumping rules, or the grapples rules. Looking up every spell that isn't cast on a daily basis, looking up the bluff rules or special hiding rules or Turn Undead rules, or the special monster feats in the back of the MM, or the 50 special afflictions that can happen to characters (Dazed, Blinded, Fatigued, Exhausted, Frightened, Panicked, etc etc etc), or the special monster type properties (so can elementals be affected by mind influencing effects), etc. Yes, as a DM I look up a lot of schtuff that I prefer to follow a more universal system, like exceptions-based monster creation, combat advantage (Rather than 10 independent minor debuffs lets have 1 standard one), etc. And to wit, obviously I was exaggerating heavily about looking up the same rule 18 times, and if you played in my 3.5E game you'd have a blast - my games are spit and polished examples of fine gaming - so there's no need to try to mock the game experience that I am capable of putting forth.

So we can't complain about Batman based on the trailer, but we can give it an Oscar based on the trailer.

The lengthy and abundantly available videos, blogs, and information out there describes vividly the goals of the 4E designers which is to streamline and simplify the rules without dumbing down the game. Yes, I'm taking their words for it that they are driving in that direction (Just as I watch the Batman trailer and make assumptions about the content without making criticism about that which I have no knowledge aside from that provided to me). (Watch the 4E unveiling video and it spells out their aims pretty unambiguously). If 4E sucks I'll be the first to go back to 3.5E, but crapping on a system you haven't explored in its entirety because it "doesn't feel like D&D" seems like criticism gone wrong to me (plenty of hard info to crap on, why crap on the unknown).

 

[Cadfan]

Funny...3E allows just the same, except you don't have to limit it to "Once per Day".

Right. Exactly. 3e allows the same, except that once you do you've broken your game. Now salt is a permanent part of every fighting character, because it rocks anyone with a low touch AC. Instead of just the Monk throwing salt because he thought it was cool, your game is a salt throwing fest.

Even using your example, you're going to break the game. The difference between the touch AC of a fighter is usually much more than 8 (+10 for plate and shield, plus magical enhancement), so salt throwing is more likely to hit than a regular melee attack. And I shudder to think of what this rule would do to dragons (great wyrm touch AC, 6).

You end up in a trap. If its good enough to be worth doing, its good enough to spam. And if its not good enough to be worth doing, there was no point in the first place. 4e allows you to replace old, weak restrictions on what you can do (proficiency, mostly) with whether or not you have the relevant power. This lets you power up the ability without screwing your game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The 1st Ed idea of the 1-minute round was supposed to incorporate the idea that PCs were doing all of these fancy options, but that in the end it was resolved by one good attack.

This works great in a game like My Life With Master, which is fundamentally narrativist, and so the only thing that matters is the outcome. However, in D&D the whole point is the combat, and so that level of abstraction regarding fancy moves is something that is neither desirable nor likely to survive for more than five minutes of play.

 

[Wormwood]

I think the signal to noise ratio on 4E is getting so bad that I feel it's becoming frustrating to follow it.

Yeah, I'm kinda there.

Personally, I'm backing off for a while. I've got two gaming groups chomping at the bit to play 4e, and I figure what I need is concrete information---not opinion. Lurk mode: Go!

 

[Charwoman Gene]

This my biggest issue with many 4E fan(atic)s they seem to think its perfectly acceptable to call 4E the greatest thing since apple pie based on the 2% of the rule set we've seen but at the same time tear apart anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with the game based on that same 2%. Kettle, meet pot...

Yes, because 4e fans are a monolithic bloc.

Is it possible that you are seeing some 4e fans of the OMGTHJIS ISTEH GREYTIST GAHME EVAR Veirety in the first part of your statement and then gettingn the second part from from the hopeful people close to the fence?

 

[billd91]

Because he can use his fourth attack and still hit easily? Because Blindness is really nasty? because after the first time he can do it without provoking? But none of that really matters, the point was that the difficulty doesn't scale in any appreciable way, and the OA is an annoying balancing factor which actively discourages cool and interesting combat moves.

But why should something like throwing sand in the eyes actually scale in an appreciable way? That's one of the conceits of 4e that I don't get: that scaling in such a way is a good thing. Some tactics should scale down as the threats characters face scale upwards. Should throwing salt work against a dragon? I should think not at all. The creature's simply too tough to be bothered by a little grit in the eye.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, because 4e fans are a monolithic bloc.

Is it possible that you are seeing some 4e fans of the OMGTHJIS ISTEH GREYTIST GAHME EVAR Veirety in the first part of your statement and then gettingn the second part from from the hopeful people close to the fence?

On the internet, there are only two possibilities: hater or fanboy. Everyone is one or the other. No exceptions.