Arashi Ravenblade
First Post
Its mostly lost me.
D&D 4E Is 4E winning you or losing you?
- Thread starter Lonely Tylenol
- Start date
Pygon
First Post
At first I was resenting all the overhype and non-answers. Now that I've found some places to get hints of info about it (staff blogs) without waiting for Wizards to toss bones out on their main page, and had a chance to participate in discussions, it's got me positively curious.
I'll be looking through the PHB with intense scrutiny to get a feel for how everything will work, and even more when the MM comes out. I'm hoping there isn't too much of a compatibility barrier between monsters and PC's. Then again, 1e-2e didn't seem to have any real problems because of that, so we'll see.
I'll be looking through the PHB with intense scrutiny to get a feel for how everything will work, and even more when the MM comes out. I'm hoping there isn't too much of a compatibility barrier between monsters and PC's. Then again, 1e-2e didn't seem to have any real problems because of that, so we'll see.
cthulhu_duck
First Post
There's still months until we hear or see anything more definite that the blog posts of the day which feel like:
We've changed this (cool!) we've changed that (why?) we've changed this as well (uh, that's not my D&D anymore) and we're thinking of changing this (cool!) and so on.
It's a roller coaster.
We've changed this (cool!) we've changed that (why?) we've changed this as well (uh, that's not my D&D anymore) and we're thinking of changing this (cool!) and so on.
It's a roller coaster.
At first, I was excited. Then, bits started getting revealed and they lost me. As of the moment.
Good
-No more Christmas Tree Syndrome
-stretching out the sweet spot
-toning down the spellcasters
Possibly Good
-The information regarding staff, orbs, wands
- points of light
Disappointed
- Everything else currently revealed
Good
-No more Christmas Tree Syndrome
-stretching out the sweet spot
-toning down the spellcasters
Possibly Good
-The information regarding staff, orbs, wands
- points of light
Disappointed
- Everything else currently revealed
I started off ambivalent towards 4E and distrustful of the DDI. To date I've seen nothing about 4E that truly excites me, and only a couple of things I'm curious about. The DDI has panned out (to date) pretty much as I had anticipated.
So as of now 4E has pretty much been a bust for me and my groups.
The only good thing about 4E has been the many gamers selling of their 3.5 books and a few good deals I've picked up on ebay.
So as of now 4E has pretty much been a bust for me and my groups.
The only good thing about 4E has been the many gamers selling of their 3.5 books and a few good deals I've picked up on ebay.
Samnell
Explorer
The 4e news has been very mixed for me from the beginning. I was a bit upset at the news, but was willing to be cautiously optimistic until I heard about "streamlining". 3.5 is at the just right level of complexity for me and I really, really dislike rules light games. Early promises that this was an evolutionary change led me to hope for something like 3.75. Maybe 3.8. I could certainly tolerate having grapple, disarm, etc work in a smoother fashion.
Then I heard about the absence of magic item pricing guidelines.
Then I heard about the reduction of the impact of magic items.
Then I heard about abandoning having a unified rules system for monsters.
Then I heard about the changes to elves and "eladrin".
Then I heard about advancing monsters being more "art" than "science".
Then I heard about "points of light", the most strangling and suffocating campaign paradigm I can think of.
3e got me on the "options, not restrictions" bandwagon. 4e is coming across more along the lines of "Options are hard, so here's more restrictions!"
My current plan is to steal ideas from the SRD to incorporate into my 3.5 game and ignore the rest. I'm seriously considering going back to 3.0 on some points too.
Then I heard about the absence of magic item pricing guidelines.
Then I heard about the reduction of the impact of magic items.
Then I heard about abandoning having a unified rules system for monsters.
Then I heard about the changes to elves and "eladrin".
Then I heard about advancing monsters being more "art" than "science".
Then I heard about "points of light", the most strangling and suffocating campaign paradigm I can think of.
3e got me on the "options, not restrictions" bandwagon. 4e is coming across more along the lines of "Options are hard, so here's more restrictions!"
My current plan is to steal ideas from the SRD to incorporate into my 3.5 game and ignore the rest. I'm seriously considering going back to 3.0 on some points too.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
I'm pretty optimistic. So far I've liked most of what I've heard of, or am neutral on it. I think I'll reserve serious judgement until there is more of real substance to judge, such as a finished class preview or some finalized crunch that directly relates to magic or a class feature. It's most likely that my group will be in the middle or beginning of a year-long run in 3.5 or another closely related game system so it's unlikely I will be an early adopter. It seems very likely that I will pick up the books as they come out unless between now and then there is a revelation that just sours me on the whole thing. That seems very unlikely, but it could happen.
'It won't be D&D!' falls on deaf ears to me. If it means finally kicking a lot of the conventions of the past to the curb, then I'm all for it. D&D has a lot of baggage that it could just as well get rid of and 4E might be a good place to start. 3E got people used to the idea of change, and to my mind 4E should introduce much more change. In some ways, even change for simply change's sake is good. The look and feel of monsters? Change away! Make kobolds into small earth elementals. Make dragons into legless wyrms that burrow into the ground or live in the sea. Give elves tails and dog ears that stick out at 90-degrees. All those are minor, little cosmetic changes.
'4E will be a new game!' is a heartening cry to me. It holds out the hope for real, lasting and substantive change from the past. I don't think that 4E will be as radical a change as a lot of people seem to think; certainly not nearly as radical as I would make it.
Radical change means a lot of different things to different people. To one person, 'radical change' might mean 'we cut out monks and assassins and half-orcs'. Pah, those are cosmetic changes at best. The makeup and number and distribution of classes is a cosmetic change. Combining Arcane and Divine magic is a moderate change. Getting rid of (and keeping rid of) certain spells, such as Teleport or Detect Evil, is a moderate change. Radical change to me would be 'We now have three stats: Mind, Body, Soul' or 'Armor takes off from damage' or 'There are just three broad archetypical classes and all changes are made with feats and talent trees'. 'There are no more hitpoints, just conditions you acquire'. And I'd probably go further than that.
'It won't be D&D!' falls on deaf ears to me. If it means finally kicking a lot of the conventions of the past to the curb, then I'm all for it. D&D has a lot of baggage that it could just as well get rid of and 4E might be a good place to start. 3E got people used to the idea of change, and to my mind 4E should introduce much more change. In some ways, even change for simply change's sake is good. The look and feel of monsters? Change away! Make kobolds into small earth elementals. Make dragons into legless wyrms that burrow into the ground or live in the sea. Give elves tails and dog ears that stick out at 90-degrees. All those are minor, little cosmetic changes.
'4E will be a new game!' is a heartening cry to me. It holds out the hope for real, lasting and substantive change from the past. I don't think that 4E will be as radical a change as a lot of people seem to think; certainly not nearly as radical as I would make it.
Radical change means a lot of different things to different people. To one person, 'radical change' might mean 'we cut out monks and assassins and half-orcs'. Pah, those are cosmetic changes at best. The makeup and number and distribution of classes is a cosmetic change. Combining Arcane and Divine magic is a moderate change. Getting rid of (and keeping rid of) certain spells, such as Teleport or Detect Evil, is a moderate change. Radical change to me would be 'We now have three stats: Mind, Body, Soul' or 'Armor takes off from damage' or 'There are just three broad archetypical classes and all changes are made with feats and talent trees'. 'There are no more hitpoints, just conditions you acquire'. And I'd probably go further than that.
zoroaster100
First Post
For me, I started with optimism about positive rules changes, but they are losing me more and more each day with announcements about how much silly "flavor" will be forced on those who switch to 4e, such as tiefling warlocks running around, rewrite of the whole mythology of D& demons and devils, etc.
Wolfspider
Explorer
Quite lost, I'm afraid.
I was hoping that they would fix some of the proven rough spots in 3.5, and I was excited about SWSE being a preview of those changes, but they have gone way beyond fixing mistakes and have just started wholesale creation of more areas that can be broken.
The fixes I've seen look promising, but there is just too much that seems to have been pointlessly changed to grab my interest.
I look at my current gameworld (World of Greyhawk) and look at what as been revealed so far about 4e, and I really don't see how I'm going to make everything fit.
I think I'll take what I like from SWSE and create my own 3.75e and keep playing from there.
I was hoping that they would fix some of the proven rough spots in 3.5, and I was excited about SWSE being a preview of those changes, but they have gone way beyond fixing mistakes and have just started wholesale creation of more areas that can be broken.
The fixes I've seen look promising, but there is just too much that seems to have been pointlessly changed to grab my interest.
I look at my current gameworld (World of Greyhawk) and look at what as been revealed so far about 4e, and I really don't see how I'm going to make everything fit.
I think I'll take what I like from SWSE and create my own 3.75e and keep playing from there.
Gundark
Explorer
I was really excited by the news. I tend to be flexible. D&D for me is whatever has the D&D logo. I'm not married to any one particular rule concept. To do so is to only face dissapointment.
However I have been let down by things that I was looking forward to before. Thus until I see some game mechanics I have taken a "wait and see" stance.
I'm still pretty optimisitic though
However I have been let down by things that I was looking forward to before. Thus until I see some game mechanics I have taken a "wait and see" stance.
I'm still pretty optimisitic though
Similar Threads
