D&D 4E First Impressions of 4E / Predictions on 5E

[Pozeltum]

My second impression

First off, sorry for the 5th edition comment. I read the moderators comment and consider it dropped.

Now for the main topic, 4E. With my initial view on what I read on 4E I'd say I was 25/75 (like/dislike). After doing some more reading, which I admit was quite a bit more than my first reading session, I am more at 45/55 based on what I have read so far.

My initial readings happen to include much of the "WoW/MMO" related content, but shortly into my second read the relation between the two fell pretty quickly. Here is a list of my personal feeling on the pro's / con's of 4E till now (At least the one's that stand out in my mind, please bare with me, I've done a ton of reading in the past two days and there is a lot of information I'm trying to take in at once)

Con's: Don't like the Tieflings and Dragonborn as Core races. I know this a smaller concerns of people, I just can't seem to swallow the idea of them being a core race. I see the core's being the most populated races in a given world, for the most part. I'm having a hard time seeing a bunch of Dragonborn in an average large town/city as much as you see an Elf or Dwarf. The material is good, just for a supplement imo.

From what I have read there will be two much healing going on. Some people are going to love this, and I understand it's not a right and wrong issue. Now I can't say if the total amount of healing is going to be greater, but it seem in 4E the healing is spread out so many people can heal in a given round, as opposed to the healers having to decide who they keep up and who they don't.

The biggest WoW/MMO related issue that I am still having a hard time with is all of the actions that give buffs to other party members. If I do such and such then the wizards spell crits etc., having a hard time with this one. It could end up being something great, but for some reason I'm having a hard time accepting it.

Rings having a level req - I believe this should be up to the GM, and that having a level req on rings should be a house rule, not the other way around.

Pros: Spells - love the fact that they are going to get those spells that were never used into the game again. I want to buy the designer who decided to put this in a beer! I believe this will make the game have more options and be more enjoyable.

Changing the CR system, getting away from the 25%/25%/25%/25% (easy/easy/easy/hard)
mindset will be a benifit. Most GM's that I have played with already had ways around this, but putting it into the core rules makes the core game better.

Making what race you are a larger impact on your character is a huge step in the right direction. There are some things that I would do different though (they took out most if not all of the minus's to stats, which I agree you don't have to have a minus for every plus. I still think halflings need some minus to str, it's kind of hard for a 4' tall guy who can lift 350lbs to even walk if he has that much muscle mass with that type of body frame)

Splitting up the spells types to various classes I think will be good in the long run, but really hard for some die hard people to accept.

There are more for each category, but I have to do some more reading and reread many things.

One last thing, and most important - to any of you who have never played a truly miniature absent game, I mean all you get is your imagination, that would be the best bit of advice I could give to a gamer. There is nothing like a good DM, your limitless imagination, and a good party. To me once a figure is placed on a mat it causes your mind to become lazy, and the three trolls in front of you are just that, three trolls, not three totally different beings with odd features, different aspects in a thousand ways. So I guess 4E sticking to the mini's is a con, but I have to admit that more people like using them over not, so that is not going to change any time soon.

And thanks for welcoming me back to D! I'm looking forward to brushing the dust off the creative side of my mind.

 

[Khaim]

i'm not going to comment on the "silliness". suffices to say that i don't necessarily want to implement the idea of feats (especially if they start to become superpowers, more than "special moves"). or that, if i want to remove magical items because it fits my campaign world, i don't want to give arbitrary (as in: "without a logical in game explanation") bonuses to some classes because the game would be wildly unbalanced for those players taking them.
this has to do more with the type of games i like to play than with game design, but, again, i found OD&D and AD&D easier to customise in the way i wanted.

Sorry, "silly" might be the wrong word. But I think that the designers, when making the system, expect it to be used as a whole, not as pieces a la carte.

As far as feats, I think you actually meant powers. It looks like 4e feats will be like Alertness, not Power Attack. In any case, the "superpowers" thing was put in so non-casters would actually get things at high level. I'm not sure if you've ever played high-level 3e. If not, here's an anecdote:

======
There's an RPG weekend thing that happens on campus ever term or so. Last year, one of my friends decided to run a 20th level arena match. Being rather anti-munchkin, he decided not to play a spellcaster and still try to beat me. Some other people were there, but not terribly important, and the real battle was me, a Wizard/Loremaster/Archmage, vs him, some kind of ranger/archer. With a cohort, who was also some kind of archer. I lost initiative.

He conceded in 2 rounds: I was back at full health, invisible, the cohort was dead, and he had 8 negative levels. Plus I still had Shapechange up, which meant everything else was overkill.
======

I'm not bragging here. That was a bare-bones, core-only build, and anyone could do it. Spellcasters in 3e are broken, and the only thing that keeps them in check at low levels is their d4 hit dice. Giving other classes abilities that are sort of like spells is really, really, really needed, and I for one applaud their new place in 4e.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the new special moves are sorely needed and fix a very broken part of D&D. I'm not sure why you object to them so much. Is it the "realism" thing? It does seem crazy that a 25th-level rogue can jump 50 feet straight up and stab a dragon in the eye (or whatever), until you remember two things. One, he's 25th level, roughly the same power level as Hercules: superhuman feats are not out of his reach. And two, the guy next to him can cast a spell that turns the dragon inside out, and can do so a couple of times a day. Is that somehow realistic?

Finally, magic items. Lucky for you, all classes now have roughly the same reliance on magic items, so you give the no-magic bonuses to everyone. Or no one, and just make the monsters a bit weaker; it comes out the same.

 

[Spell]

I'm not sure if you've ever played high-level 3e.

no, i haven't. i don't like the game enough to bother.

Spellcasters in 3e are broken

i can't comment with as much confidence as you about the "brokennes" of spellcasters, but i can tell you that i want my magic rare and fantastic, not everyday and sold at the cornershop along with milk and mars bars.

Giving other classes abilities that are sort of like spells is really, really, really needed, and I for one applaud their new place in 4e.

and this is where we agree to disagree. in my option, what would be nice was tuning the magic down, and make the entire world more mundane, if you wish, NOT making everyone else over the top, too.

it's a question of tastes, i suppose.

I'm not sure why you object to them so much. Is it the "realism" thing?

more or less... there's more, too. i find exausting having to come up with explanations that make joe the farmer live in the same world in which there are so many ubermonsters that a 15-level character can still run around and have a good fight. the point of light setting solves this problem easily: you go in the wilderness, you are on your own => joe the farmer will NEVER go in the wilderness.

but what about other types of setting?

It does seem crazy that a 25th-level rogue can jump 50 feet straight up and stab a dragon in the eye (or whatever), until you remember two things. One, he's 25th level, roughly the same power level as Hercules

and the cool thing about hercules is that there was only one at a given time, and he was a demigod and a badass character to begin with, not an ex "joe-the-farmer" turned dragonslayer after years (or should i say months? levelling up is pretty fast these days) of fighting kobolds, orcs and whatnot.

in 3e, you are supposed to have 4 demigod characters. plus their equally "demigod"-level (if not more powerful) opponents. and they are defending armies of joe the farmers who are probably asking themselves what in the world they could do to defend their lands and possessions if the party decided to take a holiday, or going plane hopping.

in 4e... well, they are assuming the party will be larger, aren't they?

Is that somehow realistic?

no, no... i don't mean to call realism or mundanity in the sense of "man, i couldn't walk in the street in middle ages france and see this happening". that's beyond the scope of a *fantasy* role playing game.

but i have problems suspending my disbelief when the difference in power level is so huge.
it was already quite painful in older editions, despite the fact that PCs would stop receiving lots of hps after reaching their 9th or 10th level. now, to me, it's just intollerable.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with having superheroic PCs... but, to me, they have to start that way.

vampires in world of darkness (at least in the old version that i ran... i am aware that the game become VERY unbalanced later on, but i pretty much just used the core book before the last version came out) /were/ superior to men, and nobody was apologethic about it. there were in-game reasons to keep a low profile, though, and the very powerful critters were simply too far away to bother, /if/ the master decided to make them roam the earth (else, they were simply sleeping somewhere, a bit like cthulhu).

similarly, superman was superman even when he was 5 years old. that made the concept credible, to me. we have superman and another bunch of villains. it's not like you can meet them EVERY OTHER DAY, because they can't physically be everywhere. joe the clerk can go around doing his business while superman saves the world because there is ONE superman. it's not like joe the clerk can become superman.

in D&D, he could. he, like millions of others, could go around, take considerable risks (that are not /that/ considerable, because we want the game to be fun for everyone and not turn it into a PC slaughterfest...), and become superman.

this has a lot to do with the american dream, if you wish, and i find it peculiar that you don't find such things in warhammer, for example, that was born in uk rather than u.s.. but i don't care about sociology and cultural studies here. i care for a game that i can run without having to ask questions for which pretty much the only answer is "it's just a game, and it's cool, and the players dig it".

that's not why i roleplayed. if i want that kind of fun, i could simply play boardgames. they are (mostly) simpler, they require less time investments, you could argue that they are overall cheaper, and, finally, they don't make me look like a dork or a pervert when i have to explain to my girlfriend's parents that a roleplaying game is not really a sexual thing... is more like a theatre thing... but, no, wait, it's not like shakespeare, it's more like fighting dragons... but wait it's not like lords of the rings anymore...

Or no one, and just make the monsters a bit weaker; it comes out the same.

if i will be able to do that as easily as you say, it's going to be working smoothly for me. as i said, i didn't follow the discussions around the 4e as closely as some of you have, so i might be lacking some information.

 

[Destil]

The biggest WoW/MMO related issue that I am still having a hard time with is all of the actions that give buffs to other party members. If I do such and such then the wizards spell crits etc., having a hard time with this one. It could end up being something great, but for some reason I'm having a hard time accepting it.

I believe the biggest factor here is the new Warlord class. We're seeing a lot of it and because it's new it stands out. But remember the Bard (well, the 3E bard anyway) was already singing to make you hit harder.

Buffs have always been a part of the game and if anything seem to be being dialed back (most buff spells are apparently going to have a duration of 1 encounter and be a per-encounter ability, no more wading into a fight smothered in wards and hello opportunity cost of having to spend an action to cast these during the fight).

The only troubling thing I've seen on this front is the elf Perception 'aura' bonus, which both is hard to rationalize on anything but a gamest level and looks overly fiddly for play, even if it is a 'defense score' ability.

 

[Thaniel]

I'm seeing a lot of ranting about the "No rings below Paragon level" tidbit of info we've received. Has it not occurred to the detractors (and I'm guessing it hasn't) that the reason 'Heroic' characters can't use rings is because rings (and all rings) have magic inherently tied to powers that aren't usable before Paragon level?

For example, let's take a hypothetical Magic Ring (in 3.Xe) that doubles the damage bonus granted by Improved Weapon Specialization. To a 6th level fighter, that ring is absolutely worthless. The "No rings below Paragon level" doesn't say that the character can't WEAR the ring. That would be a hard trick to pull off. It merely means that they get no benefit from it, similar to our hypothetical ring.

 

[BeauNiddle]

but i can tell you that i want my magic rare and fantastic, not everyday and sold at the cornershop along with milk and mars bars.

While I've seen this sort of comment mentioned before and I admire the sentiment I just can't understand it in a standard D&D game.

The wizard, sorceror, cleric, druid and bard start of spellcasting
The ranger and paladin end up spell casting
The monk has supernatural powers and spell like abilities
The rogue can detect magical auras (of traps at least) and often takes Use Magic Device.

It's only the fighter and barbarian that doesn't directly use magic and even they expect magical healing to do their jobs.

If magic is used each and every day of your life and is under the complete control of the caster then how can you attempt to try and enforce the dissonance that magic is rare and fantastic?

Other systems do it by having magic NOT under the control of the caster. They have blow back that might hurt / kill the caster, the effects are random, spells known are random, etc. but D&D is not, and never has been, set up that way.

I would much rather the designers designed the game on the basis of what it IS rather than what people think it should be. Then I want them to come out with a book which details optional rules to change it to something else. After all we want as many people as possible playing what is an awesome game

 

[king_ghidorah]

Feeling to play in a living, breathing world without any artificial barriers because of rules.
This sort of immersion will be much harder to achieve in 4E than in 3E (see rings only working for specific levels, everything only made for combat...)

D&D has always had artificial barriers because of rules (e.g., abilities defined by an artibrary class.) D&D has largely defined everything around combat from day one. Note that combat rules are detailed. All other rules, brief. Spells are largely combat oriented, rather than (for example) focusing on growing crops or bestowing fertility on families. This is a valid complaint against all versions of D&D (and one often leveled among those who are critical of D&D.)

The living, breathing world part isn't going away any more than it went away with defined rules in 3e. There may be rules you find arbitrary now (like the rings not before 11th level rule) but frankly, there is no reason to say that since some ring functions are clearly going to fall into other magic item categories and we don't know how rings will function. (For all we know, they are tied to abilities only characters of 11th level or higher will have!)

The real complaint is that 4e will be DIFFERENT. This is a reasonable concern. But it won't be like a video game because it won't play the same way. It will play like a tabletop game. Maybe like a tabletop game you don't like, but nonetheless like a tabletop game. (Frankly, I'm surprised no one rants that they are turning 4e into Exalted. That seems like a more apt complaint, I would think.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

there is absolutely nothing wrong with having superheroic PCs... but, to me, they have to start that way.

I think that might be a problem that all level-based systems have to face. People do want their characters become better, and if they can only get better in chunks of levels, there is a good chance that either:
- They don't get good enough and leveling feels pointless.
- they will improve significantly and you start as weakling and end up as superhero.
Maybe somewhere, there is a middle ground, but I think most of the time you end up with a system that is no longer level-based.

I think the first variant is nothing I'll ever want. If I will become uncomfortable with a PCs power, I should probably start a new campaign. But honestly, this only ever becomes a problem when a DM ends up overwhelmed handling the NPCs with similar abilities as the PCs, while at the same time trying to make up a plot that works...

Nnon-level based systems face other challenges. Most of the time, people start at a certain power level, and it takes forever for them to improve. You often start with specialized characters, and if you're lucky, their abiliies broaden. If not, the players hoard their XP/karma/build points/whatever to improve their core schtick and neglect side abilties. Also, advancement also crawls to the same degree as in the 1st variant of the level system.

 

[coyote6]

Checking the SRD reveals one devil and no demons able to do what you describe - the Pit Fiend no less.

3.5e removed quite a few SLAs from fiends; 3.0 had many more fiends with animate dead -- one demon and 7 devils from the 3.0 SRD, if I count correctly.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

3.5e removed quite a few SLAs from fiends; 3.0 had many more fiends with animate dead -- one demon and 7 devils from the 3.0 SRD, if I count correctly.

IIRC, the demon in question was marilith. And, honestly, the ability made zero sense for tactical purposes.

Any party which will find the marilith's zombie minions a credible threat would be annihilated in a fight with her; and if they can stand up to the demoness, they'll cut through the zombies and skeletons without problem - one turn undead will finish them off, for example.