D&D 4E Former 4E doubter , I have high hopes now

[Aristotle]

When 4e was announced I was guardedly optimistic.

As information started to come I found myself liking about 80% of what I heard, and expecting at least half of what I didn't like to be minor enough to be left out or easily house ruled.

With the most recent information I'm finding the rules didn't go quite as far as I would have liked in some regards. I certainly feel like progress has been made. I may just have to wait to see the other changes I want in future editions, or maybe as optional rules in DMG sidebars or in a book of alternative game mechanics.

I had a brief moment of "maybe I'll just stick with 3.5 or move to one of the 3.5 alternative systems" today when I read the magic item preview. I think I'll move forward with 4E, but I'm *really* hoping for those optional rules.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Wow

Well, I started this thread, but I didn't think we'd see the moderators getting involved!

First of all, let me say that I do think cperkins got dogpiled on a bit. He's entitled to express his opinion, and it's no less intrinsically valid than mine.

Someone above posted that the rules are taking the game too far in a 'Gamist' direction. That has been my fear all along, too. Like others on this thread, I really don't like the idea that magic items have character level requirements. It's hard for me to suspend my disbelief in that situation.

The thing is, a lot of 4E changes also help the simulationist cause.

Changing the way alignment works is potentially huge. Toning down transportation magic is huge, too. My hope is that I can easily house-rule the overly gamist stuff (really, how hard is it for me to ignore the 11+ level requirement on magic rings). I like the fact that every party won't need a cleric. I just finished watching an episode of '24'. Where is Jack Bauer's cleric? I like the fact that there will be a set of mechanics more complex than the diplomacy check for resolving social encounters and disabling traps.

So, I'm still optimistic

Ken

 

[Hypersmurf]

And folks, we can disagree without being disagreeable, right?

This is the key point, folks.

Try to keep to the topic at hand, and keep it amiable.

Remember where all the side-issues belong:

If you suspect a troll, then either ignore them or report them. Calling someone a troll in the thread either insults them if you're wrong, or gives them an excuse for playing the righteous indignation card if you're right, and either way, conversation is derailed.

Concerns about pro-4E bias or anti-4E bias or any other sort of bias in the tone of the forum or of the moderation belong in the Meta forum, not in this thread.

Please don't bring any further discussion of dogpiles past, present, or future; of trolls; of forum bias; or, of course, the character of fellow posters into this thread.

This is the third moderator intervention in here. Don't push it.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Simon Atavax]

Aaaaagggghhhhh!!!! Curse you, Mourn! I had almost completely forgotten about Samantha for ever and ever (or at least 23 minutes) until you mentioned her name. Waaahhhhhhhh!

You mean Samantha was with you, too? ARGH! She told me I was the only one!

 

[Desdichado]

You mean Samantha was with you, too? ARGH! She told me I was the only one [size=-2]that morning[/size]!

That's because you didn't read the fine print.

 

[Zarithar]

I have a few minor quibbles... ahem... HALFLINGS... but overall I think 4e looks intriguing, and it appeals to me much moreso than 3e ever did (which was basically not at all)

 

[Drkfathr1]

I'm pretty optimistic so far, but I only started out a little concerned, so it wasn't a big swing for me. I like alot of what I've seen so far, and the few things I don't like...I can easily change. That's what most DM's do anyways. I mean, how many of us play pure 3.5 RAW?

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm pretty optimistic so far, but I only started out a little concerned, so it wasn't a big swing for me. I like alot of what I've seen so far, and the few things I don't like...I can easily change. That's what most DM's do anyways. I mean, how many of us play pure 3.5 RAW?

If you aren't playing 3.5 RAW, you aren't playing D&D..... or something like that.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Great post, Wyrmshadows. I've looked at the same material and come to a different conclusion (I'm looking forward to 4E), but you did a great job of explaining your rationale. I can see where you're coming from.

I think one of the reasons I'm pro 4E is that the elements you pointed out (more gamist, moving to squares, etc.) are very appealing to me. Even the "be all you can be" bits; I believe that entertainment games (as opposed to educational/simulation games) are essentially wish-fulfillment.

4E seems to be all about making it easier to pretend to be a heroic warrior or dynamic mage, and to make the experience of pretending to be a fantasy hero even more fun and exciting than ever before. I'm all for that. I don't play D&D as an exercise in simulating medieval life/combat (I do SCA for that). I play it because it's fun to sit around a table with friends and go on epic adventures together, killing monsters and taking their stuff.

As for the tiefling and booby dragonborn, I can take that or leave it. They're just two of many tools in the toolchest that is the PHB. When my buddies and I build a game, we pick and choose which tools to use. Maybe we'll include the tiefling and leave out the dragonborn, maybe we'll play an all-human campaign. I'm not at all concerned about which races are included since we as a group can make that choice ourselves. I'm much more concerned about mechanics like combat, magic, and character progression--systemic elements that are much harder to tinker with/adjust without risking screwing up the whole game.

 

[kennew142]

I was extremely angry at the 4e announcement. I had just begun to rework the 3.5 rules to accomodate my next home brew, and WotC decides to change the game on me.

I never posted anything negative here because I had no information to go on at that time. The more information that was released, the more it began to look like the designers were making the same changes I had been contemplating.

I do not expect that 4e will be exactly the game I would have made for my homebrew, but it looks like it will be close enough that I can deal with it. The fewer houserules I need to enjoy the game, the better.

I'm not being being optimistic when I say that I have yet to see any design element from the new game that I hate. I haven't. I fully expect to see some in the future.

That said, there are some things that seem strange to me - some things that I don't actually like:

1) Some of the naming conventions seem a little cheesy to me. I'm hoping that it's not too much effort to change them for my game.

2) The design fluff contains too much divine fiat, too much direct deitic action. I know I can change this. I just find it extremey annoying.

3) Rings are restricted to high level characters. It makes no sense to me. I will probably include minor/lesser rings, just because I like them.

4) There are still items that provide a bonus to defenses (formerly saves). This means that there are still items that are required for every character. I can probably live with it, but - meh.

5) There are still item slots. I know that these are probably necessary for game balance reasons, but they seem cheesy to me. Since my players and I have decided to quash the generic magic mart in our upcoming games, this won't matter. There is no way that the party will find enough rings for everyone to have more than 1-2 per person. I just don't buy the logic that a character can't wear more than two (or one at lower levels).

None of these issues I have with the new edition can outweigh the relief I feel over the mechanical changes. That's why I'm so positive about 4e.