I have two concerns about 4th edition. Help me out.

[Simon Atavax]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a long time D&D player (started back in 1980) and I haven't yet picked up the 4e books. I have, however, looked through the Keep on the Shadowfell. That, combined with various lurking on enworld the past several months have prompted two concerns I'd like to throw out:

1. Keep on the Shadowfell reminds me of Descent: Journeys in the Dark. Every section of the map has a miniatures map to accompany it, even to the point where the DM is instructed on where to place the minis. I don't think I've ever seen a more minis-centric adventure than this one. Is D&D 4e going to move even more towards minis than 3.5?

2. This whole "powers" thing. I haven't played a session yet, but it seems like the distinction between magic and mundane is gone. Instead of having a wizards who CASTS SPELLS and a rogue who CAN'T (unless he multiclasses, natch) we have a wizard who has ONE POWER and a rogue who has A DIFFERENT POWER. Does this take the "magic" out of magic?

Hope these questions make sense. And forgive me in advance for asking, because I'm sure they've been debated to death by this point. But I'm coming off a brutal 3-4 month span at work and only now emerging to see what's going on in the D&D world.

 

[Crothian]

1. Keep on the Shadowfell reminds me of Descent: Journeys in the Dark. Every section of the map has a miniatures map to accompany it, even to the point where the DM is instructed on where to place the minis. I don't think I've ever seen a more minis-centric adventure than this one. Is D&D 4e going to move even more towards minis than 3.5?

Magic eight ball says "Future unclear". It looks to me that they are not going towards using minis more, but that for people that do use minis those people will get a little more out of the game. Modules by Wizards also might assume people are using minis more then in third edition, but after reading the books I think I can come up with interesting 4e adventures on my own that will not require us to use minis. I think it will now be easier for people to see how to play the game with minis then without.

2. This whole "powers" thing. I haven't played a session yet, but it seems like the distinction between magic and mundane is gone. Instead of having a wizards who CASTS SPELLS and a rogue who CAN'T (unless he multiclasses, natch) we have a wizard who has ONE POWER and a rogue who has A DIFFERENT POWER. Does this take the "magic" out of magic?

Only if you let it. It is all about description. even in earlier games a magic missile or lightning bolt could feel like just big weapons. And there were people who said the Warlock is mechanically the same as a guy with a gun. If the fighter describes his attacks and just doesn't say "I hit it with my sword" and if the Wizards mumbles arcane language and just doesn't say "I hit it with my spell" it will feel very different.

 

[Zaukrie]

1. That's pretty much how adventures evolved over the last year for 3.5 also. some like that, some don't As a DM with little free time, I like it. that said, it is the easiest thing in the world to ignore.

2. Yup, you have that right. This is a big change. But, you don't NEED to think about powers as magical. Many are, however, not realistic in our world. Cleave is now a power, as are some other things. This, to me, is the biggest change to the game. I don't think it takes the magic out of magic, as what they can do is different. But, many do agree with you, from what I've read.

 

[Scribble]

1. Keep on the Shadowfell reminds me of Descent: Journeys in the Dark. Every section of the map has a miniatures map to accompany it, even to the point where the DM is instructed on where to place the minis. I don't think I've ever seen a more minis-centric adventure than this one. Is D&D 4e going to move even more towards minis than 3.5?

Yes and no? I've heard it's possible to play the game without minis, but in my mind if you want to get the fun of the tactics part of the game, then no you need the minis. (or scraps of paper representing the minis or something...)

2. This whole "powers" thing. I haven't played a session yet, but it seems like the distinction between magic and mundane is gone. Instead of having a wizards who CASTS SPELLS and a rogue who CAN'T (unless he multiclasses, natch) we have a wizard who has ONE POWER and a rogue who has A DIFFERENT POWER. Does this take the "magic" out of magic?

I was actually afraid of this as well before I played the game, but it didn't pan out. The characters do feel very different.

Wizards and warlocks n such tend to have much flashier powers, whereas the "mundane" classes do a good job of showing effects that don't need "magic."

Also most of the non directly combat related spells are rituals now, so Wizards can still do the high magic schtick.

 

[BradfordFerguson]

1) 4E is more minis-centric, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing. combat has more positional and positioning powers, so you kinda have to represent battles on a grid. I think the adventure was written to be somewhat accomodative of newbie or newer DMs, so I think this is why things are pre-placed. It also wants to emphasize that terrain is important so it does the work for you, the DM, by adding some cover, concealment, etc.

2) Just try it. I think the fights in Keep on the Shadowfell are too hard. I wrote about this here, so I would recommend making the fights so that the XP total for each fight is closer to 400 for 4 characters and 500 for 5 characters (edit: these are the DMG recommendations and seemed to work for me in session #3). I definitely wouldn't go over double that, even for boss fights. Each monster has an XP value, so this is fairly easy to do. Just try it and see if it is fun. I think players will think their abilties are "cool" and not think "gosh, they are somewhat 'magical' in nature, but I'm a fighter and that's not realistic, bah, I quit." I think the reaction you'll get is more like, "rock on."

Long-time players of wizards and clerics will not be happy with fewer options, but at least they won't be upstaging everyone else constantly.

(Edit: ALSO with Keep. Don't ambush your players. This will make them feel flat-footed on their intro to 4E. Let both sides see each other and begin the first 4 fights on equal footing. I'm also viewing Keep as my group's intro to combat in 4E, and not necessarily an intro to the campaign I end up running)

 

[Wormwood]

1. Keep on the Shadowfell reminds me of Descent: Journeys in the Dark. Every section of the map has a miniatures map to accompany it, even to the point where the DM is instructed on where to place the minis. I don't think I've ever seen a more minis-centric adventure than this one. Is D&D 4e going to move even more towards minis than 3.5?

Personally, I'm thankful Wizards is providing maps for these adventures. I need all the help I can get.

That said, if you were able to play without minis in 3.5, I daresay you can continue to do in 4e as well.

2. This whole "powers" thing. I haven't played a session yet, but it seems like the distinction between magic and mundane is gone. Instead of having a wizards who CASTS SPELLS and a rogue who CAN'T (unless he multiclasses, natch) we have a wizard who has ONE POWER and a rogue who has A DIFFERENT POWER. Does this take the "magic" out of magic?

Not in my opinion. It's all in the descriptions, AFAIAC.

 

[timbannock]

1. Is D&D 4e going to move even more towards minis than 3.5?

2. Does this take the "magic" out of magic?

1. Partially because the "oh so evil" Hasbro owns Wizards, and also because it's economically sound, minis are pretty heavily integrated into 4E's design. Honestly, I play sessions with AND without minis based on my preference, events in the game, and so on. Both work. 4E doesn't seem to be much different (if you're a decent DM when it comes to being descriptive). So to directly answer: sorta, but not so much so that it's impossible to divorce the two.

2. No. I think once again this is a circumstantial thing: some people turn a meteor swarm into a boring iteration of "my spell does X damage to X area." I've also seen a simple magic missile or sleep spell described in words so poetic Shakespeare would cry (maybe not, but better than you or I could do, at least!).


Quick rant (but applicable to both answers): I think 4E -- either by design or by accident -- gives many more tools to help players and DMs describe things that were already there. But how well you use those tools is up to you.

For example, I think giving Fightery-types all sorts of "powers" is just a way to make "I hit, I do damage" more interesting implicitly, rather than hoping the person playing the Fighter comes up with a cool description of his maneuver (which still only had the game effect of "I hit, I do damage").

It's been said a lot round here: 4E plays better than it reads. That to me is a BIG plus in its favor. Monopoly, chess, checkers...these things have rulebooks that are as dry as dry could be, but they've been played, loved, tinkered with, etc. for how long? Hundreds of years in the case of chess?

P.S. If you want a few ideas on a mini-less 4E experience, I've already got tons. I just got the books today. So it can't be too hard!

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

1. Certainly accurate. I'd expect you could still play 4E without minis, but it definitely seems like it'll work better with them - just as 3.X did, but its much more ingrained into the rules

2. Remains to be seen - Rogue powers, for example, don't seem to have much "magic" flavor to them. I'd describe it this way - you could describe the 3.5 feat Whirlwind Attack as a Power (or exploit to use the correct terminology), and describe as a Close Burst. Functionally, its the same; but you're using terms that a 3.X'er might associate with magic.

 

[Rechan]

Did you feel that the Barbarian's rage was "Magic"? Did the fact that the Barbarian could only use it a few times a day take the magic out of the other spells?

How about the Tactical feats that cropped up in 3.5; did THOSE that granted you abilities in combat make you feel as though the magic was pulled away from magic?

The powers are the same deal. Barbarian rage and tactical feat benefits are a good example of a Martial power - it's something low key, not flashy, something they physically do.

Spring Attack and Tumble are good examples of things that constitute powers.

 

[RandomCitizenX]

As others have said before on the boards 4th edition plays better than it reads for many people. For instance when I first started seeing powers I was worried that the play styles would not have enough variation between classes. This is no longer a fear of mine after running two sessions, since even the three strikers feel like very different classes when it comes to the style and tactics they excel at.

Sidenote: KotS doesn't actually include battle maps for the entire adventure. Most of the actual dungeon encounters only have the map in the adventure itself to use as a reference.