D&D 4E How do you feel about 4E right *now*? (week of 1/21/08)

[pemerton]

Lack of true specialist wizards (this was a real blow to me).

W&M makes it pretty clear that Illusionists and Necromancers will be turning up, with Shadow as their power source. Though you this probably bumps into your other dislike, about having to wait for, and buy, more books.

Move towards the "contemporary rpg" model where the rules favor playing the game a certain way. And if you don't then you're, however indirectly, punished or made to do more work. When D&D stops being generic, it stops being D&D.

Interestingly, I've never found D&D very generic, and I'm glad an edition is coming out that is recognising this, and trying to build a system dedicated to supporting a particular style of play (or actually, I suspect, a couple of styles, one gamist and the other narrativist) really well.

No apparent concern for the effects of raising the power bar on the world (at will heals, low-level teleports).

The heal thing is not really raising the power bar (the teleportation I know less about, but it sounds like it's just movement with flashier flavour text). Rather, it's just making sure that PCs are among the lucky ones to whom permanent harm rarely happens. It's a metagame change, not an ingame change to the power level of the gameworld.

 

[pemerton]

Definitely thumbs down.

What might have sold me on 4E would be if they had mentioned these as the issues to be fixed:7) "In general, there will be less focus on 'character builds' and abilities." -- with their "no dead levels" quote, it sounds like 4E is even more focused than 3E on what abilities your PC has.

8) "The rules will not be as tightly defined as in 3.5; there will be guidelines for DMs, but they will be encouraged to make judgment calls as needed." -- another of 3E's flaws, the reduced emphasis on DM judgment calls.

These were never going to happen. Nearly every mainstream RPG has more complex character build rules than early editions of D&D - and judging from the market success of 3.5 splatbooks, they are among the most popular aspects of contemporary D&D.

Likewise, nearly every RPG (including non-mainstream ones) has well-defined mechanics, as opposed to direct player-GM negotiation, as the main form of action resolution. The absence of such mechanics from AD&D is I think the main cause of D&D's reputation for suffering from abusive gamemastering. So they were never going to turn back the clock on this either.

In fact, they're further increasing the degree of player narrative control. Not only are they keeping complex character building and action resolution rules, bit they're adding in action points as core and also changing the gameworld assumptions in certain important respects to shift the balance of narrative power from GM to players (e.g. alignment is gone, PoL gives PC safehavens unless the players trigger adversity by investigating shady goings-on).

I think BECMI is closer to what I want in a game than 3E/3.5, and definitely it is closer to what I want than 4E will be.

From what you've posted that sound right. I don't think 4e will at all support the sort of RPGing you seem to enjoy.

 

[Khairn]

I'm of 2 minds.

For the "System" alone I'm neutral. I still don't see much that I would say is a definite improvement for my game.

For all the periphery stuff (DDI, FR etc) I give 2 big thumbs down. Not a single benefit so far, but a lot that has a negative impact for me and my group.

 

[The Eternal GM]

I am still happily 'Thumbs Up' until I read or see a something major about the game that I don't think is a change for the better. My only issues with everything seen so far are cosmetic (disliking some art and the name 'dragonborn' essentially) and easily remedied.

I don't feel my interest and anticipation is really going to fluctuate until Keep on the Shadowfell (I get that right?) and I get to try the new edition out and truly see it at work.

Until then I'm enjoying the tidbits, the rumours and the discussion. I think that (the hyperbole in either direction aside) the reactions and responses to how 4th Ed. is coming together contain some keen observations and suggestions that might get taken onboard... That kinda 'oh, we missed that' mentality that really does seem to crop up on game design.

 

[Mostlyjoe]

79% All Go.

 

[Mieric]

Definitely thumbs down.

What might have sold me on 4E would be if they had mentioned these as the issues to be fixed:

1) "Your wizard will no longer be defined as just a magic-user. His knowledge and intelligence will be as great an asset as his spells." -- instead, we get unlimited magic.

2) "There will be fewer modifiers, buffing spells, and temporary conditions to keep track of." -- no clear guidance here, though hints of a greater number of effects at less variable durations (everything is either one round or one encounter).

3) "The cleric's spell list is being pared back greatly, mostly defensive and healing and not matching the wizard in power." -- instead, they'll likely continue the 1E-2E-3E trend of increasing the cleric's magical firepower, or at least freeze it at the already-insane 3E level.

4) "There will be closer parity between the classes' weapon attacks. A wizard's weapon attack won't be as damaging or accurate as a fighter's, but it won't be insignificant either." -- a moot point as wizards won't ever run out of magical attacks. It's a long discussion, but I prefer the wizard to have limited resources.

5) "Splatbooks won't increase a PC's power. A core-only PC of any class will be basically as competent as one using all of the published accessories." -- instead, the "Splatbook Power Creep --> System Collapse --> Reboot" business model that worked so well for 2.5, 3E, and 3.5 is going to remain.

6) "There will be a hard cap on many statistics." -- no evidence that this will be the case. The open-ended inflation of 3E was a flaw. I like BECMI's limits for PCs of 18 for stats, 9 HD, and -10 AC.

7) "In general, there will be less focus on 'character builds' and abilities." -- with their "no dead levels" quote, it sounds like 4E is even more focused than 3E on what abilities your PC has.

8) "The rules will not be as tightly defined as in 3.5; there will be guidelines for DMs, but they will be encouraged to make judgment calls as needed." -- another of 3E's flaws, the reduced emphasis on DM judgment calls.

9) "No more iterative attacks" -- hey, I like one that they did.

10) "Apprentice levels are back, so multiclass characters can start at 1st as '0/0.' New classes cannot be acquired after 1st level." -- just my own pet peeve at 2E dual-classing and 3E multi-classing, especially with regard to adding the wizard class.

I think BECMI is closer to what I want in a game than 3E/3.5, and definitely it is closer to what I want than 4E will be.

Almost exactly as the good Brother said, though I include something about increasing the number of non-combat spells available.

 

[Ander00]

Definitely thumbs up, overall. Though there are a bunch of things I am not convinced about yet (such as the DDI and some of the cosmetic changes).


cheers

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Thumbs up, but with the caveat that I want to see heavy armour represented as being more effective than it was in 3e. I miss the days of full plate granting DR 2/per die of damage rolled...

 

[Stormtower]

Seriously, though, I was going to wait until after the D&D Experience to post this again, AND I suggest placing this in the "General" forum as it's posible that some who are not going 4E have stopped reading the 4E forum.

I'll be interested in polling again after DDXP, when myself and others have digested the LFR preview mods that are debuting there. The "Experience" I have there will likely settle my internal debate re: whether to invest time & energy into the RPGA and 4e now that Living Greyhawk is ending.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

changing the gameworld assumptions in certain important respects to shift the balance of narrative power from GM to players (e.g. alignment is gone, PoL gives PC safehavens unless the players trigger adversity by investigating shady goings-on).

I actually really like the idea of PoL, especially the way that PC screw-ups carry the risk of extinguishing a point of light. Enemies tracking you back to your safe haven? Uh-oh. And I've always liked the idea of PCs having a real impact on the campaign world from a relatively low level (one reason I never got into FR). I'm more of a "referee" style of DM than "storyteller," and I like "sandbox" games, so I like PCs having "narrative power" in terms of where the story goes. On the other hand, I think it's really the DM's job to interpret the rules and define the mechanics. Does that make sense?