D&D 4E I have seen the coming of 4e...

[PoeticJustice]

I didn't go to Experience. Everything I'm saying is based on what I've read.

That said...I am impressed by the new layout and the simplicity of the system, but not enough to uproot my game and buy new books. I make saving throw v. shinny.

The fluff breaks with my vision of a good campaign in any number of ways. Although this can be changed, I may as well stay with 3.5 as change anything because I've already tailored that system to my needs.

My primary concern for the new edition is that most of the changes look either a half-measure or something I disagree with either in practice or theory.

I actually just typed up another few paragraphs of specific examples, but I've decided not to inflict them on you all.

 

[Jdvn1]

One of the abilities or powers was ability to automatically heal yourself hit points during a round/encounter. which I REALLY disliked. I can't see why that ended to be ADDED. Game balance NO IMHO. I can't think of another game system off the top of my head where that automatically happens.

You can't see why they added it? Take it out of your game.

I can certainly see why they added it--I've been in a bunch of games where I had to play a divine caster because no one else would. A lot of people I know disliked the flavor of Clerics enough to avoid them entirely. Clerics are often there just to cure people, and that ends up being not very fun. Thank you, WotC, for trying to make the game more fun for Clerics, and for coming up with innovative ideas. After all, just because it's not in another system doesn't make it a bad idea.

The powers abilities don't seem like feats or class abilities.

I think that they're class-specific is an important note. Not everyone can do Cleric things or Fighter things, so they're more unique. Think of powers as class abilities ("class powers" if you like that terminology better... after all, there isn't a significant difference between an "ability" and a "power")

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I can certainly see why they added it--I've been in a bunch of games where I had to play a divine caster because no one else would. A lot of people I know disliked the flavor of Clerics enough to avoid them entirely. Clerics are often there just to cure people, and that ends up being not very fun. Thank you, WotC, for trying to make the game more fun for Clerics, and for coming up with innovative ideas. After all, just because it's not in another system doesn't make it a bad ideal.

ya know were half way though STAP and not a cleric in the party for most of it. in fact there is rarely a cleric in any game i have ran its never been a huge issue. but if it is there are chep wands of cure light wound ,and postions and such . hell u could house rule a 2nd wind if u really wanted to in fact i played ina game about 5 years back where there was such a rule but anyhow i dont think there is a have to have class not even a wizard is have to have . as for flavor of the cleric change it u should see what we done to the monks flavor in a home brew where starting still a monk but when u describ it it dont 'FEEL ' like a monk same with clerics have fun with em change there dress there out look they type of amor they wear ,sure u can use heavy armor does that mean your order does?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

For me its more than that, its if you're making D&D or a new car for example if you name it say a Ford, then you know what the Ford brand is. You you wouldn't expect it to look like a Honda or Buick and you know that brands history. And so when you go to buy D&D you expect it to be somewhat like D&D of editions past and expect that WOTC did some marketing tests of fans to know what fans wanted changed in 3.5 and what they think doesn't work in the current rules set. Just like Ford might test market a new car for production and it the test car doesn't hold up to fans expectations then it won't go into full production.

Ford (or any other car manufacturer) doesn't do test marketing of new automobiles versus "fans" of Ford vehicles. They test market across a wide base of consumers in an attempt to maximize their sales. They want to grow their market, not just keep the owners they have. They understand that they risk losing some of their current market with changes. Fans of the Ford Escort were pretty upset when the stopped that line and rolled out the Focus as its replacement, but the Escort line was not growing, it was in decline so Ford needed to do something about it. The Focus was their decision.

Similarly, WotC wants to grow the hobby. They know there is no way they will make 100% of their current fan base happy with 4e, but they think they understand some of the things that will help bring new players to the game and still retain a decent portion of the current market, hopefully enough that they will increase their overall market.

Yesterday night I was thinking of Ryan Dancey's essay on travelling to TSR's Lake Geneva warehouse and what it meant to him to help save TSR by having it bought out by WOTC. I wondered if 4e was NEEDED to save D&D or rather if it was done simpley because SOMEONE felt a new edition was needed to make money rather than solve an inherant problem with rules balance.

D&D is not in need of saving like it was when WotC bought D&D, but I think they felt there was plenty of things about 3.5 that could be improved upon. The decision I'm sure was a combination of both wanting to make address the issues that many people have had with the current edition, and also to grow the market and thereby make money. That is why they are in business after all.

Only time will tell whether 4e will be a business success. It will not be a business success beyond the first year unless it also manages to be a successful game as well.

 

[Roland55]

I think everyone has different priorities and what's a major change for one isn't so important for another.
I'd say that the switch from AD&D 2e to D&D 3rd edition looks pretty strong, since so much has changed in the rules.

But others look more at several flavour effects and thing the changes aren't that big.

4E might be changing a lot on both accounts. The implied setting isn't any of the previous existing ones, and has many strong changes (gone are Astral, Ethreal, Shadow Planes, here come the Feywild and Shadowfell). The mechanics are still roll d20 for anything important, but the combat mechanics rely a lot more on power instead of simple attacks.
Which might be its greatest weakness in winning over "old" players, since there are many changes to digest.

The emphasis above is mine. I think Mustrum is correct. It seems to me there truly are enough changes of both general types that it will be hard for many to make the leap. As in every past Edition change, people will be left behind. Potentially, quite a few this time.

Personally, I somehow got past this somewhere around the leap from 1E to 2E (yes -- I am fully aware that's a simplification!). I've looked at each new Edition as a new game based on the same general "theme." That has helped me enjoy each Edition; I'm essentially 'partitioning' each Edition and avoiding intercomparisons. Instead, I just ask "Can I enjoy this new fantasy role-playing game?" If the answer is yes, and it always has been, I'm off and running ... again.

Since some of my closest friends never really moved into 2E, let alone 3E, I've also learned to exist amicably with severe critics of 'the new stuff.' You know ... it doesn't hurt to play the original games once in awhile, and if Jeff and Larry don't want to play 'the new stuff' I can be sure that Laura and Dave do.

I don't take criticisms of games ... any games ... personally. "That way lies madness."

 

[AZRogue]

I have lurked for years but don't generally post. The righteous indignation over spending money gets to me a bit, though.

I spend around 14 to 21 hours a month (5:00 to midnight; two or three Sundays a month) with my friends having a good time. I spend additional time reading message boards, discussing the game with friends in person or in email or twiddling with characters.

D&D is one of the greatest bangs for the buck you will get out of any hobby, even assuming you buy pretty much everything they put out. You can pre-order the core collection for around $67. The Player’s Handbook is about $25. Let’s assume you are a fan and you spend $200 a year in books.

You cannot buy Warhammer FB army for $200. I just bought $90 in paint alone.

If you are into video gaming, the “core” costs you $300-ish rather than $70-ish. Each “supplement” costs you $50-ish rather than $30-ish. And you can play for years and years with three D&D books. Try that with $60 worth of Final Fantasy.

If you are into woodworking the table taw is easily two years of your D&D budget. You still don’t have a carpenter’s square, chisels or even wood.

Pity those guys who trick out Honda Civics as a hobby.

My girlfriend spends well over the cost of a PH each month on yoga.

My cigarette bill is greater than one brand new Player’s Handbook a week. The average bar bill is a PH and a DMG.

A movie for two with popcorn and soda is more than the PH.

Know anyone who makes stained glass, collects action figures, refinishes furniture, takes karate lessons or has a subscription to premium cable?

D&D is, in the worst case, very cheap. And that is assuming you buy products as a hobby rather than simply three books for the DM and one book for the players.

Best of all D&D is social unlike most hobbies. Working on the Vespa is fine but I am willing to spend $67 to have some time with my friends, read enworld and look forward to complaining about the next rule’s change.

You missed my point. My point wasn't that spending money on PnP games was a bad investment, or a bad idea (because it isn't), it's that I really dislike being asked to spend money on something I already own. If you're being asked to spend money on a product it should provide you something that you didn't have before. 3.5 failed at that, IMO. What it contained was, to me, mostly errata that could have just been included in the book when it was reprinted.

If 4E was basically the same as 3E but with different feats, I wouldn't even be considering it. I own all of the 3E products (none of the 3.5).

But spend your money how you like.

 

[Jhaelen]

ya know were half way though STAP and not a cleric in the party for most of it. in fact there is rarely a cleric in any game i have ran its never been a huge issue. but if it is there are chep wands of cure light wound ,and postions and such .

In my game for a long time the only healer was a mystic theurge (Cleric/Wizard) and the players got along quite well - partly because I was very careful about selecting appropriate encounters and partly because my players are (mostly) pretty good at battlefield tactics.

When the mystic theurge died the player's next character was a cleric/Radiant Servant of Pelor. And everyone, myself included, was really amazed about how much of a difference that made. An encounter that would have been very tough, with a good chance of killing one or more characters was suddenly easily manageable.
This simple change in the party setup made the game more enjoyable for everyone involved: The cleric's player gets a kick because he gets the other players praise, the other players feel a lot safer than before and confront challenges with more optimism and I no longer have to pull punches or be extra careful when setting up encounters.

A cleric (or to be more accurate: a dedicated healer) may not be necessary, but it makes everything a lot easier.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't agree. To me, the 2e->3e shift was mostly about execution; "how do we do the same thing better/more consistently?" There's that in the 3e->4e, but there's also an apparent concerted effort for reimagination that wasn't there before.

To me there was a severe difference between the two:

2e: Magic items are ancient and powerful and no one sells them, they don't have prices, they aren't created without a long and dangerous quest for rare and nearly impossible to find reagents. Despite this fact we find hundreds of them on our adventures but have no way to sell them so we throw them out or carry 12 of the same item just in case. Monsters are mostly pushovers that we beat without really trying unless they have some extremely nasty ability like turning us to stone or killing us outright. Even then as we gain levels saves become nearly impossible to fail so we don't worry about them. We just attack until they die. We explore strange places where anything could happen(mostly because there are no rules for them and the DM will make up what he wants). We are very set in our roles as we have very little choice about how our characters advance.

3e: Magic items can be created easily by anyone with a feat and some money. There are shops that sell them and buy them off of us. They are built modularly in a very defined and precise way. We know how all of them work and plan to add specific abilities to our weapons and armor as we level. We meet monsters that are about the same power as us but swing fairly largely from way too easy to way too hard depending on the level of powergaming and templates applied to them. Most of their abilities are fairly stock, however. They work the same way our abilities work so we aren't surprised by them. They might have one or two unique things. Their nasty abilities pose a HUGE threat to us compared to their normal abilities...no matter how powerful we get there is likely a version of the monster who has a chance of killing us. We don't know if the Beholder we are facing is CR 8 or CR 25. We explore places, but all the places are spelled out in the book so we know what they are like. Even the ones we don't know use about the same rules as everything else so they are fairly mundane. Our characters can be whatever they want. Nothing is set in stone and they can be a wizard one level, a cleric the next, a druid the next. Most characters are built around arranging feats, spells, classes and other abilities to make the ultimate "build". People who don't know how to arrange them properly fall behind the rest of the party until they are useless.

Yes, it was possible to run the same worlds in 2nd and 3rd, but the feeling of those worlds(at least in the games I played in) changed significantly based on the the above factors.