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

[Moon-Lancer]

4e looks really neet, I just hate the name warlock instead of sorcerer, and I really want monks, bards and druids in the srd. imagine for a moment wizards, fighters, and rogues were not going to be in the srd and they were going to be in phb2. Well thats how i feel at the moment.

 

[SpadeHammerfist]

opinion...

...well, this is all very interesting isn't it? Although it is nice to see everyone having quite well thought out points and valid ones too, and although it is nice to see the WotC designers actually talking about what they've been planning since 2002 (is it?), and although it is nice to see that they seem to be trying to take into account things that the gamers have been asking/inquiring/arguing/complaining about 3.5; although all of this is nice, there's just a couple of points that are bugging me...

1. You do know that they are really doing this for the money, don't you? It is not to do with them pleasing us, that is just a marketing tactic! The whole point is that by making the new edition non-compatible is that anyone that wants to keep up to date needs to buy the stuff. Now, by stuff, you know that doesn't just mean the Core books, don't you? Gnomes are being left out for a reason, so that if you want to use the new ruleset and play a gnome then you are probably going to have to buy a splatbook. Well, you don't have to, but you will, won't you? Well, we did for 3.0 (Sword and Fist, anyone?), we did for 3.5 (Complete ..., anyone?), heck, we did for 2.0 (Player's Option, anyone?). They know we're going to do it again. Or are we? I know I'm not. I've got a filing cabinet/bookshelf packed full with 3.5 stuff, that is fantastic and really builds my campaign into something better. Why should I start all over again? Can I really afford it? Can I justify it to my family? Heck, can I justify it to my players?

2. They say that 3.5 has to die, because it is so flawed. People point to things like the grappling rules as an example of where the rules are rubbish. Right, so are they going to forget about grappling, then? Don't think so. Are they going to come up with a guarranteed fool-proof and fair system to replace it? Forgive my cynicism, but I don't think so. The grappling rules came into it because people in 2.0 were trying to grapple and DMs had to fudge it. To be honest, if you are low level, it's easy, if you're high level you've got Freedom of Movement running so can forget about it, and if it's really causing you a regular headache you can House Rule it into a simple opposed attack roll!

Which is my biggest point. House Rule! Which one of the changes that they are bringing into 4e cannot be brought into 3.5 with a house rule? The most fantastic thing about 3.5 is the freedom it gives to groups, they can get rid of things, add stuff from the many books, and come up with their own stuff. Don't like Vancian memorising of spells and running out of resources as a wizard? House rule special abilities, add feats that allow once per round abilities (see Complete Mage), or just give them a free staff! Sorted. New edition? Err, why?

There's a poll on the Enworld website as to what speed people would like level advancement in 4e. But, ..er, the levelling up speed in 3.5 is so adaptable to the type of game you want, what's the need to change it? If you play a game where role is important, you have less fights and therefore level up slower and can roleplay things like character interaction. If you play a game where rolls are more important you have more fights and therefore level up faster and therefore can roleplay being kitted up and tanking through dungeons! And guess what? If you're a bit of both you can balance out interactions and fights and have a medium speed of levelling up!

Also... I'm sure you've all read the stuff they're writing about the use of monsters and PCs. They talk a lot about the monsters having roles and the PCs having roles and both being supported in the new system (not a new edition, is it really?). Doesn't anyone find this a bit insulting? They seem to be saying that, as DMs, we don't know how to use monsters effectively to challenge our PCs, we don't know how to give character levels to monsters to spice them up a bit and add a bit of an element of surprise to them! As PCs, they seem to be sying that we don't talk to the rest of our group about what we want to play when we design our characters. Does anyone really not check what bases are covered? "We've got two fighters, and a paladin, a mage and a cleric, shall I play a rogue or a bard?"

I'm sorry if I've gone on, or if I've highjacked this thread... but I'm a little bit steaming!! And on top of all this they cancel Dungeon and Dragon! Grrr

 

[kreynolds]

I initially flipped out, in a good way, thought long and hard about it, then flipped out again, still in a good way. I have my concerns about the setting changes, but no concerns about rule changes.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I'll get 4e, and I think the changes will be fun to check out, and then I'll try the game and see if it's good for me.

I will probably avoid the discussions about 4e like the plague from now and until early spring. Too much noise about miniscule hints about proposed changes are eating away too much of my time and my enthusiasm for gaming.

So I'll mostly hang out on the General board instead.

/M

I'm at this point too. The degree of rampant *speculation* and all the "What would *you* like to see in 4e" threads are starting to wear me out. I'm not complaining or anything, but I just wanted to chime in with agreement. I'm going to focus on video games and board games until May.

 

[DaveMage]

4E lost me when it became known that it was not an upgrade of 3.5.

Once it was revealed that my 75+ hardback WotC 3.5 sourcebooks would be pretty much irrelevant, I lost all interest.

 

[Stormtower]

4E lost me when it became known that it was not an upgrade of 3.5.

Once it was revealed that my 75+ hardback WotC 3.5 sourcebooks would be pretty much irrelevant, I lost all interest.

What DaveMage said... plus the fact that when several folks (loudly) asked Wyatt and Slaviscek to address backwards/forwards compatibility with 3.5 at the GenCon announcment, they were ignored in favor of more marketing fluff and advice to "start wrapping up your 3.5 campaigns."

WotC's "re-imaginining" of some iconic monsters, with the presumed intention of generating demand for their 4e minis sets, was a further slap in the face to those of us who have been collecting since Harbinger.

Planned obsolescence doesn't work for me if the product in question ain't silicon. Come to think of it, that's what drove me away from computer gaming, too.

 

[Arthnek]

I am interested in the virtual table top. I think it would be smart if they allowed an option where third party vendors could create genre skin packs for the monsters and characters in the game. Since I like to play a fair amount of pulp action and adventure along with my AD&D I would like to have a pulp character selection to play on the virtual table top but, of course, this is not going to happen.

I will subscribe initially to see if I can use the virtual table top to run my own games for friends living in different regions of the country and around the world. This is mainly because the wizards virtual table top with all its cool 3d models and lighting kicks the snot out of the character chip 2d game tables currently available.

I am interested in the 4e books largely out of wondering what the license will be like and whether I can write material for them as an indee writer.

I am not very interested in converting my own AD&D campaign over to 4e. Outside of buying books as tools and references as a writer I am not likely to invest the money I did on any scale like what I did with the 3.5 books (of which I own a great many).

From what I am seeing on this thread and in other places it looks like rather than growing the brand and increasing market share by creating a buzz about a great game that WotC may be faced with an unfortunate drop off in sales as a result of this move.

I will be sad if that happens. I feel that WotC has contributed a lot towards creating an environment where a ton of wonderful fantastic artwork was created and a venue for fantasy writers of all sorts over the years with 3.5. I am concerned that the company might need a 20% boost in game sales but will instead experience a loss of perhaps 10%, maybe even 20% or 30% of their long term / core customer base. In an industry where the margins are already razor thin this might be a real financial problem for the brand.

It will be interesting to see if 4e financially harms rather than helps the D&D brand whether WotC will open up the license further for indee publishers or will sell the IP off completely to a different company.

Who knows. Maybe the additional income from the digital initiative will greatly bolster the brand so that the loss of a chunk of customer base out of the hard copy market will not be missed.

 

[Fobok]

From what I am seeing on this thread and in other places it looks like rather than growing the brand and increasing market share by creating a buzz about a great game that WotC may be faced with an unfortunate drop off in sales as a result of this move.

I think it's a bit too early to tell. People were just as negative about 3e at this point after announcement. We won't really get a tell of how much people like or hate 4e until after the PHB is out.

 

[delericho]

4E - Is 4E winning you or losing you?

Losing.

But it started from a very strong position. I was ready for the announcement of 4e, and when it became apparent that they were taking the game apart and putting it back together, that was even better.

Unfortunately, some of the changes have left me really cold, but these are primarily (perhaps exclusively) in the flavour text, so we'll see what May brings.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I remember as a teenager absolutely loving RuneQuest because monsters had the same stats as PCs. It was my favourite thing about 3e.

But what works as a game uber alles. Running and building monsters and NPCs is too complex in 3e. In fact it's probably the number one complaint. If incoherence is the price to pay for solving this problem then I say pay, pay.