My opinion of 4e has progressed from neutral, to short-lived cautious optimism, to an overall negative perception. I'll reserve final judgement for the actual product, but I'm hearing almost nothing that sounds positive. So of the milestones thus far for me include:
Less-reliance on magic items (a huge positive) being nerfed by increased power level (Epic being built in), PCs being defined as heroic in power at level 1, and wizard implements. Does a +6 wand, a +3 staff, etc. sound like less reliance on magic items? It doesn't to me. I do like the thematic presentation, however.
The disconnect between the purported reasons for the release versus the scope of the changes. "Fixing" elements of 3e should not require changes of the magnitude and scope we're being led to believe will exist. Clearly, if 3.5 isn't compatible, the changes must be fairly drastic.
The "weak sell" of the problem areas. Many of the criticisms leveled against 3e are in my opinion criticisms of play styles, DM experience (i.e. rules familiarity), or corrected by minor tweaks (vast library of d20/OGL products I'm looking at you - you solved many of the "problem areas" of D&D for me already).
Faster leveling. When leveling becomes the primary objective of the game versus the enjoyment of the game itself, you've made a wrong turn.
Change for changes' sake. Many of the changes seem to exist only to soldify the incompatibility of 3e and 4e rather than to derive a true design benefit.
Monsters using different creation rules than PCs. I suspect this philosophy will extend to NPCs as well. If you want simplified monsters and NPCs, is anyone really forcing you to spend every skill point? No, but I like being able to when I want to define a monster to that level of detail.
The stronger focus on 3e's flaws rather than 4e's strengths. And the whole "we can tell you x without revealing everything" argument is BS. You want to slowly roll out info? First you ID a change - tell the what. Next blog, tell why the change will was made and why the change will improve your game. A few weeks, months,etc. - tell the how - show specific mechanics teasers or excerpts. Don't give me "I feel so sorry for people who still have to play 3e. Last night my rogue ran up a wall and flipped over his opponent. 4e is so darn cool."
The DDI/subscriber based content. One of the biggest aids RPG companies can do is provide additional info via their website. Companies like Paizo, Green Ronin, WotC (previously), and others leveraged the web to generate interest, answer questions, and receive player input. Charging for that seems like a huge mistake. Charge for the virtual tabletop, as that is a service. But frankly, most of the content I've seen over the years on the Wizards' site is not something I would pay for. (And I'd rather Dragon and Dungeon be magazines, thank you.)
The "How baked is it?" Factor. The design blogs have suggested that a lot of 4e is still in early stages. Given the amount of time remaining between now and the PHB ship date, there doesn't seem to be sufficient time to playtest, make changes, and publish. My concern is that this will either result in a 4.5e or a 5e coming sooner.
Finally, people have criticized the "too invested in 3e" argument as not making sense. Here's my take on it. 4e will have to recycle topics already covered in 3e. 3e covered subjects that 2e covered. If I haven't used, say, Complete Warrior to where I've "gotten my money's worth" yet, I don't want to buy the 4e fighter/warrior splatbook. And just because the material is broken up, mixed with other topics, and labeled PHB2, PHB3, and PHB4 doesn't make it any less of a supplement.
Less-reliance on magic items (a huge positive) being nerfed by increased power level (Epic being built in), PCs being defined as heroic in power at level 1, and wizard implements. Does a +6 wand, a +3 staff, etc. sound like less reliance on magic items? It doesn't to me. I do like the thematic presentation, however.
The disconnect between the purported reasons for the release versus the scope of the changes. "Fixing" elements of 3e should not require changes of the magnitude and scope we're being led to believe will exist. Clearly, if 3.5 isn't compatible, the changes must be fairly drastic.
The "weak sell" of the problem areas. Many of the criticisms leveled against 3e are in my opinion criticisms of play styles, DM experience (i.e. rules familiarity), or corrected by minor tweaks (vast library of d20/OGL products I'm looking at you - you solved many of the "problem areas" of D&D for me already).
Faster leveling. When leveling becomes the primary objective of the game versus the enjoyment of the game itself, you've made a wrong turn.
Change for changes' sake. Many of the changes seem to exist only to soldify the incompatibility of 3e and 4e rather than to derive a true design benefit.
Monsters using different creation rules than PCs. I suspect this philosophy will extend to NPCs as well. If you want simplified monsters and NPCs, is anyone really forcing you to spend every skill point? No, but I like being able to when I want to define a monster to that level of detail.
The stronger focus on 3e's flaws rather than 4e's strengths. And the whole "we can tell you x without revealing everything" argument is BS. You want to slowly roll out info? First you ID a change - tell the what. Next blog, tell why the change will was made and why the change will improve your game. A few weeks, months,etc. - tell the how - show specific mechanics teasers or excerpts. Don't give me "I feel so sorry for people who still have to play 3e. Last night my rogue ran up a wall and flipped over his opponent. 4e is so darn cool."
The DDI/subscriber based content. One of the biggest aids RPG companies can do is provide additional info via their website. Companies like Paizo, Green Ronin, WotC (previously), and others leveraged the web to generate interest, answer questions, and receive player input. Charging for that seems like a huge mistake. Charge for the virtual tabletop, as that is a service. But frankly, most of the content I've seen over the years on the Wizards' site is not something I would pay for. (And I'd rather Dragon and Dungeon be magazines, thank you.)
The "How baked is it?" Factor. The design blogs have suggested that a lot of 4e is still in early stages. Given the amount of time remaining between now and the PHB ship date, there doesn't seem to be sufficient time to playtest, make changes, and publish. My concern is that this will either result in a 4.5e or a 5e coming sooner.
Finally, people have criticized the "too invested in 3e" argument as not making sense. Here's my take on it. 4e will have to recycle topics already covered in 3e. 3e covered subjects that 2e covered. If I haven't used, say, Complete Warrior to where I've "gotten my money's worth" yet, I don't want to buy the 4e fighter/warrior splatbook. And just because the material is broken up, mixed with other topics, and labeled PHB2, PHB3, and PHB4 doesn't make it any less of a supplement.
