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

I like most of what I've heard about 4E so far (with a couple of notable exceptions).

However, as they say, the devil's in the details, so I won't be making any purchasing decisions until I see the finished product. If they can pull off everything they're talking about, I think 4E will be a great game. But that's a big "if."
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Stormtower said:
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.
IMHO more to a sweep kick, then taking your teeth out with a curb stomp, after which wotc offers you a pair of dentures. ;)
 

The 4e announcement initially wowed me with promises to fix the two elements that drove me away from D&D 3.0 — the "homework" necessary to prep an adventure, and the cumbersome combat rules.

After several news tidbits and much online community suppositions, I've slowly settled into an interested fence-sitter. There are some new elements that sound well conceived, but there are some that make me very skeptical.


While most of the info is still speculative, my leanings so far:

Anticipation:

Simplification of DM prep-time
Streamlining combat (AoO, grapple)
Curing christmas tree syndrome (and hopefully golf bag o' weapons)
Changes to the magic system (balancing spells, at-will/per-encounter)
Devaluing of alignment
Continued support of OGL
No assumed core setting
Flipped saves
Race having more impact on the nature of a character
Linking elves more firmly to their chrome (more fae)
Condensing skills
Talent trees
Weapons having more "character"
Combat maneuvers


Circumspect

Faster advancement rate
Too much potential crunch tied to newly imposed fluff
Emphasis on character "roles"
Changes to available classes (What is a warlord, and no druid or sorcerer?)
Not addressing the "swordmage" archetype in the PHB
No resolution for the "holy warrior" (militant-cleric vs. paladin)
Changes to SWSE skill ranking system
Magic item construction
Wizard implements (orb, wand, staff)
Monsters using different creation rules than PCs
Changes to the resource management paradigm
Undefined changes to "save or screwed" effects
Nothing yet addressing "immune to X" abilities


Dread:

Increased overall power levels (heroic @ 1st level?)
The growing anime/Wow influence in some of the art
The growing wuxia influence in power-types and naming conventions (ala Tome of Battle)
Removal of Gnomes as a core PC race to make room for... tieflings and warforged? :\
DDI: Potentially vital additonal content being pay-to-play
Purchased e-books and Dragon/Dungeon being unable to print


Indifferent:

Changes to the planes
Changes to demons/devils
Points of light
Virtual desktop
Books beyond PHB/MM/DMG being considered core (PHB2+)


My greatest concern is that all the blogs/podcasts indicate they're still in rules development. Considering their announced release date, it seems there is simply too little time remaining to playtest all the rules-in-flux properly. Despite their specific denial, I see a fat errata waiting in the wings... and 4.5 looming on the horizon.

Another, but lesser concern is, I am fearful that WotC hasn't learned anything from their (and TSRs) mistakes of the past: STOP flooding the market with crunchy splat books! They should let the core rules stand alone concentrating on adventures and campaign settings for at least the first year. Allow players to absorb and grow comfortable with the game before hitting us with a parade of Compleat Books of Twinks.

Of course both of these will only be revealed after release. But assuming they will eventually start offering rules deviations, they really should playtest the s#it out of each class/PrC, feat/talent, etc., making damn sure they don't clash with previous material or worse, make old stuff obsolete.
 
Last edited:

4e has me very interested.

I'm excited about the digital initiative, I work in a field that doesnt allow me a standard schedule to get together with friends at home, but it does allow me large blocks of internet access, and I love pdf's, so pdf's of the books I buy are even better, being able to fix the rules in my pdf are even better.

I love Eladrins and Tieflings in the PHB, assuming the arent the -2 cha Tieflings, and I hated gnomes. I could never understand why Succubi were demons and not devils, or why Erinyes and Succubi both existed to be the biblical succubi, and with this level of hitting on the things that bug me, I can only hope they are going to make drow Lawful Evil, also, as thats my second last pet peeve they can fix.

But best of all, no more Vancian magic. THANK YOU GOD.

I also trust Mike Mearls quite a bit.
 

Allright, updated my list as well:

THUMBS UP! (14)
- Monk not in core
- Half-Orc not in core
- racial progressions
- no core setting
- fixed XP per monster
- less reliance on magic items
- easier to make NPCs
- faster combat
- complex non-combat encounters (ex. social)
- less feat trees
- fighter more dependent on weapon choice
- vulnerability to energy not simply more damage but special effects
- grapple simplified
- massive damage gives penalty for the day but not death

THUMBS DOWN! (13)
- static Save Defenses replace Saving Throws
- Druid not in core
- 30 spell levels instead of 9
- merged skills
- fixed skill ranks per level
- energy drain removed
- autohealing while attacking
- base most spells on damage
- conditions tied to % of remaining hit points
- "siloing" of special ability types
- action points are core
- immediate/swift actions in core
- no confirmation rolls in criticals

Everything else, I'm basically neutral about, neither significantly in favor nor against.

Just for fun, I will keep track in my sig the current favor/disfavor level, starting from 50%-50% and swinging by 1% every new rumour (now it's 14 ups and 13 downs = 51%-49%). It's totally silly but it's FUN, and it SPEEDS UP calculations, so it must be good :p
 

I suppose I should trademark the term "leap-grognard". I was a 1e old-timer that skipped 2e and returned to the fold with 3e. I run a fairly new IRC chat-based game, "Heirs of Turucambi", and would like to convert to the 4e rules, when they are available. So long as I can run a 4e game in the World of Greyhawk, in a setting entirely underwater with non-core races, I'll be set. As the BBEG is a bard, I'll need those in the core rules. The D&DI won't run on my Mac, so that's out too. The merging of the erinyes and succubus needs to be undone or optional; wrong direction for my tastes. I have created female daemons and demodands for my games, each has their role.
 

Hmm?

Where does the art suggest an anime/wuxia influence? Most anime characters in fantasy western fiction wear simple clothes (Slayers, Ruin Explorers, Record of Lodoss Wars etc).

Really, what ARE you guys basing this arguement on? I'm an old-school anime grognard (a.k.a, I was a member of rec.arts.anime(.misc) BEFORe DBZ/Pokemon/Sailor Moon) and the art released so far is definitely not close to anime standard fare.
 

Personally, they are losing my interest.

I started on Basic and AD&D. I weathered 2nd edition. I moved on to 3rd and enjoyed the changes. 3.5 has been a drag on playing in all honesty. It feels like the end of 2nd edition again. I'm not impressed with the direction of the 4th edition based on what is posted.
 

AllisterH said:
Really, what ARE you guys basing this arguement on? I'm an old-school anime grognard (a.k.a, I was a member of rec.arts.anime(.misc) BEFORe DBZ/Pokemon/Sailor Moon) and the art released so far is definitely not close to anime standard fare.
'Anime' is a buzzword; it doesn't have to based on anything except fear, uncertainty and doubt.

"It's not drawn by Dave Trampier or Erol Otus; it's anime!" "That elf doesn't look the same as the elves in 3e/2e/1e/Basic DD/ODD/my personal imagination; it's anime encroaching into D&D!"
 

Remove ads

Top