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

[Zamkaizer]

I'm cautiously optimistic about 4th Ed. I believe it will improve on 3rd Ed. in nearly every conceivable way. I just need to remind myself of that whenever I read the words 'warlord,' 'tiefling,' or 'acid,' or think about how 8 isn't divisible by 3.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

#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.

Tedious prep work is tedious prep work, whether you think it helps or not. And while I'd agree with you that monsters aren't hard to design, they're monstrously hard to apply an appropriate CR to (let alone a correct\ one), and encounters can be hard to balance. Too hard, some say.

#3) One, I thought it wasn't about levels?

Who ever said that?

I thought it was about the gaming experience, not the creature's experience.

First, that's actually really clever. Secondly, my gaming experience includes leveling. It's pretty awesome that way.

Most people I talk to say leveling every 4 sessions is TOO fast anyways.

Apparently, Wizards' market research department spoke to much larger numbers of their opposite number. Makes you think.

Now you want to make it faster. What you want to go from 1-30 in a single day?

Not personally, but I can houserule that.

Go play WOW, oh... yeah, D&D is suppose to be like WOW now... sorry forgot...

Having fun with D&D thanks. And we forgive you, but try to pay more attention.

#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.

Your playstyle =/= the only one.

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.

Yeah, I think I can see how refuting this line of unreasoning would go. No thanks.

So why are we changing it, just so it's more like a computer game? Go play your computer game kiddies...

Wow. That was pretty unwarranted, no?

#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.

Wait, what?

Be honest. Have you actually played Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd or 3.5 edition?

 

[Baby Samurai]

Be honest. Have you actually played Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd or 3.5 edition?

Yeah, I think we're all wondering about that at the moment.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

Yeah, but the "wealth by level" is really not useful, since it doesn't account for the items actually being useful for the party.
Consider two parties. One has a set of Splint Mail +2 and two +1 Throwing Axes. The other has two sets of MW Fullplate, a +1 longsword, and 50 +1 arrows. The former party has a higher GP value of items but they are poorly designed and overpriced magic items.

Items that are optimized for PCs are probably worth at least twice as much as randomly generated items. So if PCs were under-equipped by 50%, but could choose the exact items they wanted, I imagine they'd still be able to handle the encounters they faced.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

I'm optimistic. I like what I've heard so far.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'm indifferent about 4e. Some things I like, some things I don't. However, since my players aren't interested in 4e at all, the point is moot. Besides, at this stage of the game - and my life - spending the vast amount of time converting my campaign just isn't in the cards.

But sounds interesting:
- The orbs and staves and stuff for wizards
- That different weapons do different things
- The classes have some sort of differentiation based on race
- Less magic items
- Quicker prep time

What I don't care for:
- The change in resource management paradigm
- Separate monster progression
- Shorter monster stat blocks (really!)
- Changes to monsters in general
- And, of course, any fluff changes are more likely than not to get a big thumbs down.

 

[amethal]

No one ever said that.

Plenty of people said that major announcements would be made at Winter Fantasy / D&D experience.

They might have been making it up (can't find anything official), but it didn't alter how I felt at the time.

 

[Nebulous]

I'm very excited. I quit buying 3.x stuff a while back because i didn't like it much and rarely used it. Endless feats, prestige classes and spells aren't really that fun for me. I had to houserule D&D or use 3rd party products to create the kind of game i wanted to play. Many of the changes they're implementing sound great to me, and i'm willing to give it a chance. Plus, i always thought Mike Mearls was a solid game designer.

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[Kyuss Knight]

Forgive me if any of this has been stated in earlier posts. This is in response to OP and as of yet I haven't had the time to read the long list of replies.

I too was very angry and disappointed when I heard of the announcement of 4e at Gen-Con this year. I don't have decades or more in this game like a lot of people in this community but I do greatly care for the game and a lot of the happiness in my life is derived from times I've shared with close friends playing, talking, and learning about it.

I know that the main drive behind the new edition is monetary in nature. Anyone who disputes that needs only ask any of the share-holders whom hasbro, and thus, WotC answer to if they give a rodent's rectum about Dungeons & Dragons. That being stated, that fact that the parent corporations need to sell widgets does not mean that the designers who love and care about this game as much as anyone who frequents EnWorld don't want to do the best job they can to make 4e the best DnD experience they can.

I have to say that the sheer volume of info that is coming out of Wizards these days is far too much for me too digest. I am a lot less bitter about 4e than I was the day after the announcement. Now, I still don't plan on converting anytime in the near future. 3.x is where I really cut my teeth on DnD and aside from the grappling rules (which I don't think I would understand if Monte Cook came to my house and personally tutored me) I like the rule set.

So I guess I can say that 4e doesn't anger me anymore, but I have no plans to convert.