D&D 4E Is 4E winning you or losing you?

[Shades of Green]

I have mixed feelings about 4E; at first I was somewhat disappointed that 3E is going to be swept aside after spending some serious money on it, later I saw that 4E has some advantages, but I'm still not 100% convinced.

Likes:
- Streamlined combat.
- Less dependence on magic items.
- Talent trees (more diversity per class).
- Shorter monster statblocks (and, presumably, easier monster/encounter design).
- Points of Light (fits my gaming style like a glove to the hand)

Dislikes:
- Per-encounter magic.
- Separate monster progression (monster-PC compatibility was one of 3E's strikes of genious).
- Heroic level-1 PCs (heroic status is something that should be earned and won, not granted for free).

And, besides, 3.0E with houserules and some 3.5E-SRD grafts isn't a bad game at all...

 

[Stalker0]

I'm always excited by new mechanics. Because whether I decide to play 4e or not, just the possibility of adding new mechanics to a 3e game is worth it.

I like what I've seen so far, and I think once people get more of the whole story behind these mechanics, we will hear a lot more ooooh and ahhhs instead of the cautiousness we have now.

 

[Imaro]

You know, after thinking about this I have to say I'm smack dab in the middle. There just isn't enough substance for me to say yes or no at this point. I kind of feel like I'm examining a used car and right now all I'm hearing is the sales pitch. I'm not going to buy something off the sales pitch. Let me get under the hood and see how it works so I can make an informed decision.

Right now we've got the designer's and story team telling us what they want D&D 4e to accomplish...
1.) Streamlined and faster play.
2.) Easier and faster monster/NPC generation
3.) Faster leveling
4.) More kewl abilities and powers with per-day/per-encounter & at-will abilities
5.) etc.

Yet I really don't know how these things are being implemented or what form they will take in actual production or in the game as a whole. An example, IMHO, are Prestige Classes in D&D 3.5. I originally thought these were a great concept and assumed(wrongly) that WotC would provide hard and fast rules for designing them, especially since these were suppose to be a way for DM's to customize their campaigns. Instead they became endless book filler that never got official rules for construction(this is one of my big fears about "traditions" for wizards).

I honestly don't think I'll be buying the books when they first come out. The whole process seems rushed and WotC isn't known for their excellent editing or proofreading. I would rather wait, learn more about the system(by checking out the SRD) and make a decision on the 2nd or 3rd printing.

 

[Davewolf]

Originally pissed at having all the 3.0 & 3.5 stuff apparently made useless, then cautiously optimistic over some of the proposed changes. Now? Well depressed as out of the 9 in my group, only two of us like the idea and the rest are looking forward to getting a lot of 3.5 stuff cheap (and have no intention of playing 4th).

 

[National Acrobat]

Indifferent all the way around. Like I have mentioned in previous posts, my group of gamers has limited opportunities to game now that we are much older, and even though we love DnD to death, we no longer purchase materials just for the sake of having them or supporting the brand. When we do get together, as infrequent as it is, we tend to play 1E ADnD or 3.0 DnD and we're happy with it. I've been amused at the discussions of 4E but I am overall indifferent to it. I'll look at it when it comes out, but not purchase it.

 

[Baby Samurai]

I got so excited when I first heard about it that I started tickling my dorsal!

And the more I hear, the more brazen I become with my tickling.

 

[Vlos]

Funny, This is what I am hearing...


Right now we've got the designer's and story team telling us what they want D&D 4e to accomplish...
1.) Streamlined and faster play.
2.) Easier and faster monster/NPC generation
3.) Faster leveling
4.) More kewl abilities and powers with per-day/per-encounter & at-will abilities
5.) Less dependency on Magic items.

#2) I personally never thought a monster was hard to design, you had several books of them, NPCs usally are, but no more so than PC, but that is what makes them unique.

#3) One, I thought it wasn't about levels? I thought it was about the gaming experience, not the creature's experience. Most people I talk to say leveling every 4 sessions is TOO fast anyways. Now you want to make it faster. What you want to go from 1-30 in a single day? Go play WOW, oh... yeah, D&D is suppose to be like WOW now... sorry forgot...

#4) Well I normally play mages and rarely run out of spells or things to do and we go and go, and when I do I use my staff or wands, but that is how a mage is suppose to play. If you don't like it, play a different class. Merlin didn't run around casting spells all day long... He cast very few spells in a day in almost any movie I have every seen. Usually 1-5 spells, go ahead watch one of the movies, he doesn't go about casting fireball after fireball... He cast a spell here or there. But he conserves his powers and uses them wisely when needed. That is what mages do... Give me a movie where the mage type runs around casting fireball after fireball after fireball all day long? There are some that come close, but again they are more warlock like and don't have the flexibility of a Mage. So why are we changing it, just so it's more like a computer game? Go play your computer game kiddies...

#5) As for less dependency on Magic items, I'll laugh the day I see that. Today YOU can play without a single magic item. I don't ever recall anywhere in the DMG that says you need to reward magic items? Or in the Players Handbook that says You are guarenteed a magic item? So how can they say todays game is dependent on Magic items? The only reason this is brough into play is because people play with them, because they LIKE to play with them. There is NO Dependency on them, CRs are NOT designed around having magic items.

 

[Tewligan]

For the most part, it's winning me over. When I first heard about it, I admit that I sneered and rolled my eyes in a most unbecomingly sarcastic fashion. However, the more I hear about it, I'm becoming pretty intrigued. Easier monster advancement/development? Less prep time? No effin' gnomes? Flavorful wizard "props"? Good stuff. There are a few things I'm iffy on, but overall it sounds like a game I might actually like to run - plus, it'll be a lot easier to get players together for 4e than my current system of choice, 1e.

 

[Baby Samurai]

There is NO Dependency on them, CRs are NOT designed around having magic items.

I disagreed with most of your post, but this statement really takes the cake, as it is completely, 100% untrue.

 

[Tewligan]

#5) As for less dependency on Magic items, I'll laugh the day I see that. Today YOU can play without a single magic item. I don't ever recall anywhere in the DMG that says you need to reward magic items? Or in the Players Handbook that says You are guarenteed a magic item? So how can they say todays game is dependent on Magic items? The only reason this is brough into play is because people play with them, because they LIKE to play with them. There is NO Dependency on them, CRs are NOT designed around having magic items.

Oh, that's absolutely not true. CRs ARE, in fact, calculated to assume that PCs have a general level of magic items dependant on their class. It's not something I like, but it's true - if you have a party with significantly less than the recommended wealth/magic level, then the CR system really breaks down after the first couple of early levels. Well, breaks down MORE, anyway - I think the CR system is fairly hit-or-miss as is, but it becomes much more miss if you remove the standard level of magic and don't adjust for it in other areas.