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

[dmccoy1693]

Ok, I have been an advid supporter of trust the developers. But this new design article has brought up two concerns:
[snip]
These two elements have me concerned a bit. I do not like the feel this puts on the characters and would like the designers to address these concerns.

*Cue the Queen music*
Bum, bum, bum. Another one bites the dust. And another one's gone and another one's gone. Another one bites the dust.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I have two noobs in my game at the moment. If I were to apply your standard for competence, I'd have chucked them a long time ago. But they're my friends, and they're slowly learning how the game works. Perhaps some of us have other priorities than you do, and perhaps this game isn't as transparent and easy for some people as it is for you. One of the things I'm hoping for 4E is that I'll have an easier time teaching it to new players without overwhelming them. If they need to memorize a list of random jargon words just to learn how their character works, it's going to make that process more difficult for me.

 

[Lanefan]

My only concern with the names is that they'll not inherently describe what they do. That said, I also hope there's *some* flavour in them...

Calling a feat the "Swallowtail Sweep Kick" is fine; it's a colourful name that also gives an idea what it does.
Calling the same feat "The Swallowtail Manoeuver" is utterly pointless.

As for restricted abilities and not every class being able to do everything...I'm all for it! If your character can do everything then what do you need the rest of the party for? I'd rather see characters have useful class-based strengths and severe class-based weaknesses...putting together a collection of different strengths via a *party* of varying classes serves to cover over the weaknesses, and the whole should add to a bit more than the sum of the parts. This ties into my dislike of multiclassing; it's so often used to build (and the very existence of *that* term irks me) a character that can do a bit of everything and is a one-person party.

The 2-weapon example used earlier is a poor one, I think, in that anyone should be able to pick up 2 weapons and try to fight with them, at varying penalties based on dex. and with a higher-than-usual chance of fumbling; but if you're a particular class (fighter, post-Drizzt ranger) and do so your penalties are reduced.

Jack-of-all-trade characters = pet peeve of mine.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

This may smack of elitism, but any player at my table that doesn't know what everything on his sheet means needs to step away from my table and read the damned book.

I know it's asking a lot, but I usually require my players to know their characters before they try to play them.

If I'd enforced this in my last campaign I'd have had almost no players.

I'm talking 20+-year veterans here who still forget to write down their mundane equipment!

And I'm talking 1e here; in 3e it's worse due to all the feats, and even with my own 3e characters half the time I forget what feats they have or whether they're relevant in a given situation. (but at least I have mundane equipment!)

Lanefan

 

[Sonny]

One of the things I'm hoping for 4E is that I'll have an easier time teaching it to new players without overwhelming them. If they need to memorize a list of random jargon words just to learn how their character works, it's going to make that process more difficult for me.

I think this is the best reason to stay away from overly flavorful names. A name causing people to groan because it's silly is one (very minor) problem. A name that impedes the ease of which one can learn the game is a more serious issue. Then again, WoW has talent names like "pursuit of justice" and that hasn't stopped anyone from learning (or playing).

 

[IceFractal]

Man, I knew that Golden Wyvern Adept was going to be controversial the moment I saw it. Although the name seems appropriate, given that it's tied to the Golden Wyvern tradition for Wizards.

I think the 4E books, especially the PHB, will have more default flavor. And I think this makes sense - look at it this way:

Experienced DM's want to be able to customize things to their campaign. Newbie DM's just want a base to start with. Which group is more able to do the "heavy lifting" of renaming/reflavoring things? And is it really any harder to change an existing flavor than to add flavor to something that has none?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

And is it really any harder to change an existing flavor than to add flavor to something that has none?

If that flavor has ties to the mechanics yes it becomes harder to alter the flavor than simply add to the bland. And the more significant the mechanical ties the harder to adjust things. For an example let's look at another fantasy rpg of similar complexity, Exalted. I've played and GMed the system but it will never replace D&D because for all it's a nice system it's flavor is too intertwined with its mechanics to allow the sort of manipulations D&D can handle. And at least in my opinion what has made D&D stick around isn't the inherent flavor of the core it's the ability of GMs to handily modify it to suit their group.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree with overly colorful names. It's risky because for every cool one they get right, they make another which stinks badly. Would have been better to stay less colorful (and speaking of colorful... can't they at least think of something else than actual colors?).

2) The restricting of feats and talents into classes moreso than 3.0 or 3.5. Now, I know that talents are going to be looser, and I know that you can be one class and dabble in another to get feats and talents you want, but I don't think I like the FEEL of that. I don't like that I have to take some levels of ranger to get two weapon fighting or a few levels of rogue to get mobility. It is counter to the feeling of many characters in stories. What if I don't want to multiclass but i want something that could be a single feat instead of 3 levels in a class?

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. I like niche-protection of classes. There can be both class-specific feats and feats open to every class in the same game. With some balance between the amount of the two, you can both protect the niche and yet have flexibility. Otherwise, if you always choose flexibility, there is no limit to where you can go, move the limit farther to satisfy one player and you get another player asking for more... I think that multiclassing is already enough for most purposes, otherwise I'd just play Gurps.

It all depends on what abilities tho. Your character concept shouldn't be restricted by the rules (the setting could be restrictive, but that's different). But you have to ask yourselves if it is really the concept you want or just a cool power... Because if, as you say, I had to play a Ranger as the only way to fight with 2 weapons, that is a restriction to character concept, and it's bad. But Mobility is not really a concept, it's a mechanical advantage; there is no reason why it should be available to every class.

 

[Rechan]

While I actually love the colorful names and the school traditions etc etc, I will concede that "It doesn't tell you what it does, and thus is confusing for new players" is a valid point.

 

[neceros]

1.) The name Golden Wyvern Adept is most likely for the Golden Wyvern Initiates, who developed the style of casting. If you don't like that, you're more than able to change the name.

2.) I think too many people are stuck in 3rd ed mode. I can't personally see a reason not to multi class if you need to. Fighters defend. If you need to defend and strike, you'll probably need to multiclass. I'm sure the multiclass rules are not the same.

Just because it says "Ranger" doesn't mean you have to be a wood-loving, short sword and longbow wielding divine caster. It's just a name.



As with everything else we just need to sit tight and see how it ends up. I've seen this kind of panicking when EverQuest 2 was being developed. Sony did the same bull crap that WotC is doing right now.