D&D 4E Concerned with 4e now, do you agree or not?

[jolt]

I don't care for the colorful names either. Colorful descriptors should generally be setting specific and left out of purely game mechanic areas. I don't need or want "Harmonious Rhythm of the Dancing Wave" just to say "dodge". However, this isn't something I'd classify as a concern necessarily. Most such things, in our games anyway, will quickly take on new names based on the effect the ability actually generates. Colorful names, if needed, I'll add myself with names appropriate to my world. I'd rather the rules lean towards brevity with fluff added on after.

I don't have enough info still to comment on #2. If that is indeed the way they're going then I'm against it. Such things give (the impression anyway) of more restrictions rather than more options. No offense to those who like Castles & Crusades (TM) but I hate the idea that you have to be a Rogue to hide. But I'll have to wait and see how it works in practice.

My main concern with 4E is that, despite what the devs had said, it will be more restrictive with fewer options instead of the other way around. I'm also getting a nasty suspicion that what the devs are calling "more options" aren't going to be what I consider "more options".

jolt

 

[Fifth Element]

I agree with the first point. I know everyone says "but you can just change it!", but the problem is that if you change it the conversation will go like this:

<snip>

That would indeed be terrible, if anyone were actually suggesting that. At this point we have no idea how many feats and abillities will have "colourful" names, but given the sample feats provided it appears that most will still have the plain, descriptive type of name.

So if there are only a handful of colourful names, renaming would be doable. Changing "Golden Wyvern" would not result in the conversation you provided, as your post suggests when read literally; only changing everything (including "Alertness" and "Toughness") would, and no one has yet suggested that would be necessary.

 

[sckeener]

Player B: Where is this lexicon?
Player A: It's all on the wiki.

One need look no further than the Psionic translation to fantasy names thread on the old wotc boards.

Many people are turned off by the science sounding names of psionics. A thread was created on the WotC boards to translate psionics into fantasy sounding names.

It is a nice idea...but the constant double checking of reference tables is confusing just to use a power. Might as well invent your own gaming system.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

1) Feh. I happen to like evocative names. I suspect a lot of people do, too. Also, I can think of many feat names that don't specifically describe what they do. Just as an example, Robilar's Gambit...is that about chess, energized playing cards, or what? And, frankly, if you don't know what a feat does, it shouldn't be on your character sheet.

2) I don't have a problem with this. I've heard of lots of people multiclassing to get specific abilities for their characters (and did it a few times myself), so it's not like it's a big conceptual change. Once we get more details on multiclassing, it'll probably make a lot more sense.

Brad

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

1) Overly colorful names for feats (and their like) with Golden Wyvern adept. I really do not like how this affects the feel of my campaign. This is because players reference and use this rules, so I can not remove them or rename them as a DM like I can a monster or magic item.

DMs have managed to do it for more than 30 years. You can do it, I have faith in you!

 

[Lord Fyre]

Neither of these issues really bothered me. I have other worries, however.

• 3.5 backlash. While I think it is a little soon for a new edition after 3rd, 1 definitely feel it is too soon after the whole 3.5 push.
• No SRD yet. The short production cycle of the game has made if very hard for WoTC to provide enough support for 3rd party publishers. This will make it hard for them to get their supplimental items ready in a timely manner.

 

[Commonblade]

It's too early to tell. I don't mind flavor changes, if I don't like them I don't use them. I run my own homebrew anyway so its not like it changes what I use. When push comes to shove, I will look at 4th edition when its released. If I like it, cool. If not, I have a great game in 3.5.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I LOVE IT.

I'd sig it, but it's too long... Maybe I can find a piece...

So use this:

[sblock]

I agree with the first point. I know everyone says "but you can just change it!", but the problem is that if you change it the conversation will go like this:

Player A: I use my Sweep Kick feat.
Player B: Sweep Kick? Which one was that again?
Player A: In the PHB it's called Azure Tragic Howitzer
Player B: So why aren't we calling it that?
Player A: Because no one could remember what it did, and it sounds stupid. Sweep kick describes the feat.
Player B: But if I want to look it up, I need to remember that it's called Azure Tragic Howitzer, so we should just call it that. Exactly how many feats did we rename?
Player A: All of them.
Player B: Do we have a translation key?
DM: I made an Excel file to translate. You just type in the new name here and it tells you the feat you're looking for, and vice versa.
Player B: So, I need to use that to know what I'm supposed to write down on my character sheet, because we're not using the regular names for the feats. Plus I need to use it to translate if you mention any feat at all?
DM: Yes.
Player B: Did we rename anything besides feats?
DM: Well, just talent trees, spell names, skills, magic items, monsters, two-thirds of the weapons, gnomes, and the various planes.
Player B: Where is this lexicon?
Player A: It's all on the wiki.
Player B: So, in order to simply check to see that what I think something is called is actually what it is called, I have to look online?
DM: Well, what do you want me to do? Publish a translation dictionary?
Player B: We could just use the names from the PHB. We're going to be doing so anyway, as part of the process of looking them up.
DM: I will move heaven and earth in order to avoid using the phrase "Golden Wyvern" in my game. And so will you.

[/sblock]

 

[jolt]

1) Just as an example, Robilar's Gambit...is that about chess, energized playing cards, or what?

An excellent example of why this is a bad name for a feat. Why isn't it called Billy-Joe-Bubba's Gambit? Presumably Robilar was famous enough to have such a maneuver/tactic whatever named after him. Unfortunately, in my world, this wouldn't be true. So not only does the name provide no useful description, but it isn't evocative worth crud. I could call it the Walawalawala feat and it would be just as evocative.

Evocative names are only useful (and can only be useful) if they actually evoke something. If Robilar doesn't have any meaning to your players or characters then calling a feat or ability by that name has no value. I agree that evocative names can be nice, but it has to be tied to your world or something with which your players are familiar. That's why fluff should come after mechanics, not as part of it.

2) I don't have a problem with this. I've heard of lots of people multiclassing to get specific abilities for their characters (and did it a few times myself), so it's not like it's a big conceptual change. Once we get more details on multiclassing, it'll probably make a lot more sense.

Brad

I agree, but I also think you shouldn't have to multiclass just to be able to hide. It remains to be seen how restrictive number 2 ends up being, if at all.

jolt

 

[BryonD]

Ok, I have been an advid supporter of trusting the developers. But this new design article has brought up two concerns:

Hey dude,

Just yesterday some guy was telling me that he knows an insider and that the WotC guys playing 4E love it. As a matter of fact it makes 3E look primitive and awkward. And I trust the guy. He has never lied to me before and I believe him.

So just cast your worries aside. It is all good.