For the first time... apprehension

[Zaruthustran]

Adembroski, if you're only just now finding out about 4E then the variety of snippets of info (and conjecture) must be overwhelming. I encourage you to spend some time reading primary sources (interviews, teasers, and playtest reports from WotC employees), as well as the newly-released preview booklet.

I think you'll find that WotC is indeed creating a brand new edition. Meaning, this is *not* 3.75. It's not taking a foundation of 3E, and trying to improve on it. No, 4E is as big a change from 3E as 3E was from 2nd Edition. That's a good thing! I think that once you grok that this truly is a new edition of the D&D game, and see some of the changes in context, your apprehension will be diminished.

To address some specific concerns:

Yes Tieflings and Dragonborn are core. D&D is moving away from a Tolkien emulator, and taking more ownership of itself. If you want a more Tolkien feel, it is very easy to cut those two races and just set your personal campaign in Middle Earth itself. D&D 4E will not collapse if those two races are removed, and they don't have a fundamental impact on the mechanics.

Yes the game formalizes the way players have played since the beginning of the game; they go ahead and codify traditional party roles into four explicit "roles". Did you know that the terms "tank", "nuker", and so on were organically created by players? Those terms have been used for years and years as a useful shorthand for communicating what you're supposed to be doing in a party. Specifically, Living Greyhawk has used those terms when mustering a group of strangers into parties at conventions. It's much more useful than asking for class (a wizard with barred evocation is very different from a wizard who likes to wade into melee with Polymorph, who is different from an enchanter). For literally decades, people have been using terms like "tank" and so on. It's useful shorthand for experienced players, and a valuable guidance tool for newbies. So: formalizing those terms isn't really a change. It's just integrating a player-created phenomenon.

Dexterity counting when fully armored: where did you hear this? I don't think the rules for Dex have yet been released. Check your primary sources, and remember that the game is still in flux. Even some of the stuff in the 4E preview book has since been changed.

Warlord: as another person mentioned, this is the Boromir class. I'd even call it the Aragorn class. The class for the guy who's in the front lines, leading by example, the brilliant tactician and charismatic captain. The game has been lacking such a class: a class for the player that wants to do more than swing a sword or shoot a bow, but doesn't want to be a rogue or a caster. I'm glad it's in 4E.

Wizardly implements: D&D has always forced wizards to use implements. In earlier editions they were called "components." This isn't really a change at all. If anything, it's a freedom: instead of every single wizard in the entire history of wizarding using the exact same words, exact same bits, and exact same gestures to cast a specific spell, I get the impression that now you can have your wizard cast that spell however you want to imagine. Instead of Spider Climb *always* requiring the ingestion of a spider--no matter if you're a wizard from the arctic, or whatever--now you can cast that spell with a swish of a wand, *or* a stomp of a staff, *or* by rubbing a crystal ball, *or* by... whatever. Wizardly implements are rooted in fantasy, and they're cool.

Speeding up combat: have you played through a combat in 4E? No? I urge you to withhold judgment until seeing it in action.

I'm sorry, but your complaint about skills doesn't make sense in light of recent revelations such as this:

"When a player puts forward what you consider a plausible countermeasure
for a trap, the next step is to determine the best resolution method and
a suitable action cost for the countermeasure—even if that countermeasure
doesn’t exist in the trap’s presentation.

...

In short, always find ways to reward quick thinking and fun when it comes
to traps and hazards."

"Corollary to the Second Principle: Thinking players are engaged players:
reward clever ideas.
In challenges as freeform as these, players will come up with uses for
skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say “No.”
Instead, let them make a roll using the skill but at a high DC, or make
the skill good for only one victory. This encourages players to think
about the challenge in more depth and engages more PCs by broadening the
range of applicable skills."

Sure, the 4E skill list is shorter. But each skill does MORE. Here's the full link to the source of that quote--he's replying to a 4E skeptic, and explains a lot of the design choices which seem to concern you: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/471ee6b55c347b85

Give it a read. I hear your alarm but seriously, read what some of the designers and developers have written. Get some solid primary sources of info. I think once you integrate all the info and put it in context of a true new edition, you'll like what you see.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I get the impression that this edition is inspired not by a long standing role playing tradition nor a century of fantasy literature, as previous versions were. This seems to be the pen and paper son of Everquest, Utima Online, and World of Warcraft.

Most of the 'literature' that inspired D&D was lowest common denominator pulps. We're not talking about Dostoyevsky here.

Also whatever was current in pop culture has always inspired D&D. The TV show Kung Fu was the basis for the monk, the rust monster and bulette were kids' toys, 70s swamp monster comics led to the Shambling Mound. In 3e, the X-Men seem to be a source for the sorcerer and warlock's 'feared and hated' bit, while the soulknife is a direct rip of Psylocke. The PHB2's knight and dragon shaman come from WoW.

If videogames had been as huge culturally in the early 70s as they are now, you can be sure they would have formed part of the basis for OD&D.

The core game continues to drift further and further from its Tolkienesque roots

D&D is more sword & sorcery than Tolkienesque. Though above all it is its own genre. It rips off the bits from Tolkien and places them in the plot of a Conan story except with four heroes including a knight hospitaller and a wizard with magic that more closely resembles field artillery than anything in fiction. The foursome carry ten magic items each and in the course of a single day use them to kill twelve minotaurs, Dracula, the wolf man and Godzilla.

4e fluff is in many ways a return to the literary and mythological roots - devils are fallen angels, Feywild = faerie otherworld, tall elves.

Further, we have roles which seem to mirror the common class roles in our pure-combat/no-role-play online RPGs. Might as well have cut to the chase and renamed the Fighter class "Tank".

OMG! Something in D&D seems to vaguely resemble something in some videogame. I note there are apes in the 3e Monster Manual. That means 3e D&D is exactly like Donkey Kong, right?

Also from our friends in the MMORPG business, fighters and paladins can now apparently will their opponents to attack them.

No, they can't.

Ah, the Warlord class... how wonderful, a class that can do pretty much the same thing any other class can do with the right skill combination.

No, it can't.

Dragonborn... once again, what should be a DM's discression race available at the outset, force the DM to be the bad guy if the race does not fit his world.

Just as banning elves makes the DM the bad guy?

There have been references to "Trees" rather than free form feats. The abominable power tree system from WoW does not free the player, it shackles him.

Power Progression... gone are the days when a world can be defined by its prestige classes, another of the brilliant additions of 3rd edition. Now we are stuck on this destined path where we must reach a given level no matter what organization or devotion we wish to join with. There always were level issues, but they were adjustable... emphasizing the prestige of those with high requirements.

Multiclassing... FYI, sometimes restrictions are good things. To simply allow a character to willy-nilly grab whatever class/race combo they want generally does not make for a great game.

Make up your mind. Do you want more freedom or less?

Wizardly implements... again, forcing the mythology of a campaign on us where it will may not fit.

Just as D&D has always done, with classes such as druids and monks, spells such as sticks to snakes, arbitrary spell schools and culturally specific spell names and components.

4th edition skills focus on encounters... no use rope, no tailor... in other words, you're a video game character now. Stop your role playing, damn it!

Profession (Tailor) is far more important in WoW than in 3e D&D. So surely removing it makes D&D less videogamey, not more.

 

[dmccoy1693]

2.) D&D is barbecuing some sacred cows so that the game will evolve. More people played tielfings and half-dragons (or would have, without those ridiculous LAs) than played Gnomes.

Well what do you expect? WotC screwed the pooch with the gnome. Favored class: Bard, Cha bonus, no. Gnome hooked hammer is a martial weapon; can the bard use martial weapons, no. Illusionist spell-like abilities that require a Cha bonus, so fighters, rangers, certain rogue builds, and wizards are probably never going to be able to use. Oh, and those spell-like abilities, the bard could have at 1st level and the save DC can increase as they increase in level. Wait a second, Wizard's dump stats tend to be Cha. So a "major" part of the race is unusable because I played the other suggested great use for a gnome. And don't forget they can also talk to a badger, but only once per day. Bonus to Craft (Alchemy) and that makes them 'good tinkerers?' Maybe if the gnome is a pyromaniac, in which case, I recommend the Pyrokineticist. Wait, it still doesn't allow the gnome bard to use the gnome hooked hammer.

Is there any way to interpret this as WotC rolling a nat 1 on creating the gnome. Why couldn't WotC instead put their effort to reimagine the gnome instead of nixing the gnome? Why couldn't they make the gnome cool?

In a campaign starting soon, I'm playing a Whisper Gnome Scout/Ranger (Swift Hunter). Why? Because the Whisper Gnome is cool. It's built to be a spy. Spell-like ability: silence. Dex bonus, Cha pen, perfect. Small size with 30 ft movement rate. Bonus to spot, listen, hide and move silently. This race rules.

 

[Dragonblade]

The core game continues to drift further and further from its Tolkienesque roots; the beautifully simple and recognizable foundation upon which world's can be molded from the DM's mind. In the place of that elegance is an almost forced mythology, with Tieflings... which should always be a DMs option... presented from the outset as a base race.

ALL races have always been a "DM's option". I have played in games where half-orcs weren't allowed, where even elves weren't allowed. Just don't use tieflings in your world. I see no problem here.

Further, we have roles which seem to mirror the common class roles in our pure-combat/no-role-play online RPGs. Might as well have cut to the chase and renamed the Fighter class "Tank".

I have played D&D for 20 years. Fighters have always been "tanks". D&D classes have always had roles, they just were more of a behind the scenes thing. WotC has simply moved this concept from behind the scenes and made it more prominent. IMO, this is a good thing since you now can see upfront what a class is designed towards without having to mentally deconstruct it to try to figure out how it might fit into the party. This is of benefit to players, but also to DMs, especially when designing adventures and challenges for the PCs to face.

There have been references to "Trees" rather than free form feats. The abominable power tree system from WoW does not free the player, it shackles him.

As far as I know, there is no WoW style power tree system in 4e. Multi-classing should work much smoother and feats should be easier to take without getting locked into 3e style feat chains.

Dexterity now apparently counts full even when fully armored. One of the most logical and game-balancing changes of the 3rd edition has been scrapped for the sake of character power.

I'm not sure where you are getting this. Even so, it doesn't matter. The designers have frequently said that you shouldn't view snippets of 4e with a 3e lens (even though that is all we have to go on). Assuming that you are right, and Dex counts towards AC for all classes, I wouldn't presume that change exists in a vacuum and everything else will be as it was in 3e. The whole game is changing. Since we don't know much more about attack bonus progression, feats, powers, spellcasting, etc. It is currently impossible to judge anything we hear about 4e and say it is unbalanced since we don't know what else they changed to adjust for it.

Also from our friends in the MMORPG business, fighters and paladins can now apparently will their opponents to attack them. Will we have a "threat" score as well?

No aggro mechanic in 4e. In 4e, fighters get mechanics that emphasize their ability to go toe to toe with monsters and to defend their party members. For example, a monster could still try to get around a fighter and attack the wizard, but now the fighter will likely get AoO's or otherwise be able to do something to the monster. This is a vast improvement over previous incarnations of D&D. Too many TPKs have I seen because monsters blitzed the party, took out the casters, and then mopped up the fighters once the healing, damage dealing, and buff spells were no longer in play.

Ah, the Warlord class... how wonderful, a class that can do pretty much the same thing any other class can do with the right skill combination. A warlord is not a class, it's a role.

The Warlord class seems pretty new and interesting to me. Sure buffs have always been available through spells, but now that focus is shifting and we have different options. You can still play a buffing cleric for example, but now I can achieve the same effect without being confined to a single class.

Power Progression... gone are the days when a world can be defined by its prestige classes, another of the brilliant additions of 3rd edition. Now we are stuck on this destined path where we must reach a given level no matter what organization or devotion we wish to join with. There always were level issues, but they were adjustable... emphasizing the prestige of those with high requirements.

Since we don't know anything about paragon paths or epic destinies, or even multiclassing at all, I would say this statement is premature. The new system may be far superior to the prestige class system.

Dragonborn... once again, what should be a DM's discression race available at the outset, force the DM to be the bad guy if the race does not fit his world.

DMs have always had house rules. I have never thought of it as making them the "bad guy".

Multiclassing... FYI, sometimes restrictions are good things. To simply allow a character to willy-nilly grab whatever class/race combo they want generally does not make for a great game.

Why? There has always been two problems with multi-classing. The first, is that it can be a way to gain easy power and abilities by taking a level or two in front loaded classes. The second is that you are heavily penalized for multi-classing when there isn't obvious synergy. A level 5 fighter/level 5 wizard will be a far less effective character than a level 10 character in either class. Some of that is by design. After all, you are trading power for versatility. But you are still considerably handicapped. Some of that is alleviated by taking feats that boost your effective caster level, or by taking a prestige class like the Eldritch Knight. But those feats and that class are clearly designed as a patch to fix a flaw in the current rules. What I have heard about 4e indicates to me they have resolved both those issues.

Wizardly implements... again, forcing the mythology of a campaign on us where it will may not fit.

As opposed to what? The mythology where every wizard choose a very D&D-esque school of magic like Evocation, Transmutation, or something? I have read lots of fantasy literature that featured wands (Harry Potter), and Staves and Orbs (LotR). However, outside of D&D specific settings, and the writing of Jack Vance, D&D's magic system is extremely limiting for DM creativity. The new system is much better. Plus since you expressed a fondness for Tolkien, the new system seems to lend itself better to Tolkien than the previous one!

Combat... listen, guys, there comes a point when speeding up combat takes too much complexity from an already simplified system. 3rd edition sped up combat to an astonishing degree. It seems like it's a bit too much of an emphasis at this point considering how well 3rd edition handled it.

Since none of us have played a 4e combat, its impossible to say what it will be like. I will say that 3e combats can take a long time due to the sheer number of attacks everyone has. Getting rid of iterative attacks is a good thing. No long will I see all the enemies move forward and engage in a toe to toe slugfest, with every player waiting around while everyone resolves all of their attacks. With 4e we should now see dynamic battles with enemies that move around and fewer attacks means less rolls and quicker play.

4th edition skills focus on encounters... no use rope, no tailor... in other words, you're a video game character now. Stop your role playing, damn it!

Let's be honest here. If a character only has a few precious skill points, are you going to put it in Profession: Tailer, or Spot? And from a game balance perspective, you can't really balance non-combat social skills against skills that can mean the difference between life or death for a PC. If you increase the number of skill points, players will just put more into valuable skills like Tumble. Pretty soon we are all skilled at everything equally. Thats not interesting. Or we could have a dual skill system where we have non-combat skills with their own set of points, and then combat skills with their own points. But that gets clunky and tedious. The bottom line is that background skills should be addressed by PC background, or by a system similar to SW Saga where you have a certain proficiency based on your level for all your skills, with a few chosen ones that you really excel at. That seems best to me, and its easy.

 

[glass]

But I'm just a grumpy old grognard, what do I know?

If you really think that most 14-year-olds are functionally illiterate, not much apparently.


glass.

 

[glass]

I wouldn't worry. I absolutely loathe WoW and I'm pretty pumped by what I'm hearing about 4E. It'll be fine.

I wouldn't know WoW from a hole in the ground*, and I also like the sound of most of the changes that have come up.


glass.

(* Well not really, obviously: Holes in the ground are fairly easy to identify)

 

[kennew142]

In the hands of a poor DM, you're right... the use of skill points in social/role playing skills only serves to make you a poor warrior. Clever use of skills by the DM, however, brings those skills to life and makes them desirable... further keeping the game well balanced and allowing a player to paint a fuller picture of who their character is. Gather information is one of my favorite skills, in fact, because its use has lead to many of the most memorable role playing encounters I've ever been a part of.

Ultimately, there has to be a mechanic that allows the character to be better at something than the player is. Without social skills, you can't have that.

Who said there wouldn't be social skills in the game?

 

[kennew142]

I am by no means trying to say that Lord of the Rings is the be-all-end-all of fantasy gaming. However, I do believe it provides the best overall model for a "generic" core. It includes the skeleton of virtually every fantasy world with little EXCLUSION required.

I generally try to avoid excluding things from the core books, thus I don't like the core books hoisting too much upon me.

I hardly think Tolkien is generic fantasy, unless generic fantasy to you means only religious allegory.

As for requiring few exclusions:

1) Fritz Lieber, Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith - no non-humans, no clerical magic, no cast and forget spells

2) Moorecock - no dwarves, gnomes, orcs, halflings, goblins, and (arguably) no 'elves', no clerical magic, no cast and forget spells

Furthermore, most modern fantasy worlds inlcude wizards who aren't actually powerful celestials.

It's always amazing to me that Tolkien-boosters insist that Tolkien and Tolkien epitomizes the fantasy genre. The genre is much broader than Lord of the Rings. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Tolkien, but I wouldn't call it generic fantasy, any more than D&D has ever been generic fantasy. The tropes of D&D don't fit into any fantasy world except for those novels specifically set in D&D campaign worlds.

 

[Cmarco]

Is there any way to interpret this as WotC rolling a nat 1 on creating the gnome. Why couldn't WotC instead put their effort to reimagine the gnome instead of nixing the gnome? Why couldn't they make the gnome cool?

They actually considered junking the gnome in the transition from 2e to 3e. Also, I'm sure you'll have an easy time using gnomes from the Monster Manual. Wizards isn't tossing the gnome completely. I personally love gnomes, but they are so rarely used (in the entire time I've been gaming, I've seen two gnome PCs). I have no problem with them dropping the gnome into the MM, as it stands. The gnomes are still in town, they're just moving next door.

 

[Hairfoot]

The genre is much broader than Lord of the Rings. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Tolkien, but I wouldn't call it generic fantasy, any more than D&D has ever been generic fantasy.

Indeed. D&D is sword-and-sorcery in the style of Robert E. Howard et al. Someone wrote a great post a few months ago about the the influences on D&D from Orientalism to folk stories, but I don't know where it is.

Furthermore, most modern fantasy worlds inlcude wizards who aren't actually powerful celestials.

True, but I've noticed an increasing tendency in D&D to treat celestial supra-creatures as something not uncommon in the game world, culminating in the upcoming tiefling race in 4e. Though I think it's all largely a product of providing "as PC" rules for exceptional creatures.