I've made up my mind...for now.

[WhimsyTheFae]

I like True20 more than D&D, so I don't see myself running any 4e games.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

When 3rd edition came out, most of my gaming friends eagerly adapted. Exploring the new edition with renewed interest in the game. Here was a version that embraced usage of a single mechanic to resolve everything.

One of the great myths of the 3.x era.

"Roll a d20 to resolve everything!!!11one!11!"

except for turning undead, dealing damage, stabilizing when unconscious, arcane spell failure, and a bunch of others I can't remember right now.

"A single mechanic!!!" Bah.

 

[The Little Raven]

turning undead

"Roll a d20 to resolve any action."

1d20 + Charisma modifier = turning check. Turning damage is not an action.

dealing damage

This isn't an action, in and of itself. The action is the attack roll, which is a d20.

stabilizing when unconscious

Granted, this is an action of sorts, and not represented by a d20 roll.

arcane spell failure

Not an action.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

"Roll a d20 to resolve any action."

1d20 + Charisma modifier = turning check. Turning damage is not an action.

This isn't an action, in and of itself. The action is the attack roll, which is a d20.

Granted, this is an action of sorts, and not represented by a d20 roll.

Not an action.

I would love to debate with you about the definition of "action", and whether WotC marketed 3.x as "all actions resolved with d20" or "*everything* resolved with d20", but I don't feel like it, frankly. I think I'll clip my toenails instead.

 

[Keldryn]

How can anybody possibly make anything resembling an informed decision at this point?

 

[Gundark]

See my sig.

I'm betting highly that there will be people who have stated that they'll not be playing 4e that will be eating their words.

Why? Because until you have the books in your hands you don't know why they did what they did. Without context what now looks like a horrible blunder could instead be considered brilliance when we have the whole picture.


Devil's Adovcate...Possibly the reverse is true

I'd wait until the books are released to make a decision.

My group stated that they were under no circumstances going to change to 3.5 from 3.0....Guess which edition we all playing now?

 

[Duncan Haldane]

"Roll a d20 to resolve any action."
Stabalising when unconscious.
- Granted, this is an action of sorts, and not represented by a d20 roll.

Wow, you can't equate a 10% chance to a D20? 19 or 20 Stabalised. Done.

The reason they used Percantages for things like roll is so that people won't think they are modified by other factors. But so long as the Percentage ends in a 5 or a 0 you can represent it with a D20 roll.

Duncan (who can also work out that 30' is 6 squares!)

 

[the Lorax]

I just want a ruleset that gives me the advantages of 3e (codified rules, more balance, not having to make up constant house rules) without the above disadvantages. 4e appears to provide that.

*Nod* I'd like this too, I just don't know that I'm sold on this being true. My next set of campaigns are going to start before this summer, and I dont relish the idea of switching to a radically different rule set mid campaign.

I have it on good word from within the company that DMing 4e is going to be amazing. They wanted to make it easy to do, fun and still challenge the players. In this realm alone, the game sounds worth trying.

With that said, as long as the character creation is satisifying and we can still get the same degree of gaming (or better) as with previous editions, you can always change story elements your not wild about back to 3.5 D&D easy enough.

I currently run 3 different games. Reduction of prep time does indeed sound like a wonderful thing. DDM has been a WONDERFUL aid in reducing prep time for me - flip sides of the stat cards have been very useful. As for Story Elements, I've been running my own home brew campaign world for a long time - so I'm perfectly fine with bending story and flavor elements to suit my purposes, this is not a barrier to me.

I really feel like this is a new version of a piece of software that is comming out. One where the manufacturer has decided to make radical changes in the appearance and function. All the tool sets are changing, and it wont open your old files.

Lorax, I wonder if we are the same age? Your first 6 paragraphs or so are deja-vu all over again.

But, (also) like the Basterd, I am ready to finish my current campaign and move on. 3.0 was a big improvement (3.5 a tiny one), but it turns out it is not perfect.

One other difference: I see the shear volume of 3/3.5 stuff as a liability, not an asset. I like the idea of refocusing on the core, not being concerned about what of the many books I do or do not want to use, and everybody being on the same page again. At least for a while.

Dave, I do feel where you're comming from - I have one player in particular who is constantly trying to find "new and cool" combination of classes from all over. I DO feel like I'm in the "Skills and Powers" era all over again, and would like this mess cleaned up. I wish WoTC would realize that massive amounts of Crunch are not what I needed, this does NOT make it easier for me to run my game, it makes it more difficult. Dungeon. Dungeon makes it easier to run my game. The huge adventure library that I have makes finding an appropriate adventure to fill my story needs easy. I'm a numbers kind of guy - makeing a new monster or designing a new PrC to fit an element in my campaign is easy stuff. Creating a new adventure with maps and NPCs, Detailing a town with interesting shops and political events, thats the kind of thing that becomes a huge time sink for me.

I *AM* looking forward to 4e, and I DO want to give it a try, I just dont see it happening any time soon. I do feel that, for me, its still too early to make the change.

 

[the Lorax]

Nothing I've seen has struck any interest for me. That's NOT to say the finished project won't be good or even great, I think I can safely say my group (who've already declared they're not spending money on new editions because we've sunk so much cash into 3.5) won't be playing it.

So understandable - I've got roughly a dozen people across my play groups. Of all of them, I have one of the most optimistic views - the most open to the idea of change. The idea of pitching a Thousand dollars worth of books in the trash bin to replace them (slowly) with another set of a thousand dollars with of books that do the same thing is not especially appealing. It really makes me have some sympathy for those who are dubbing 4e as "$e".

DDI, and the death of Dungeon and Dragon magazine have gone a long way to squashing my enthusiasm for 4e. The online versions of the magazines needed to be Home Run, and instead we got a Sacrifice Bunt...

 

[the Lorax]

<on stabilization>

Wow, you can't equate a 10% chance to a D20? 19 or 20 Stabalised. Done.

The reason they used Percantages for things like roll is so that people won't think they are modified by other factors. But so long as the Percentage ends in a 5 or a 0 you can represent it with a D20 roll.

Duncan (who can also work out that 30' is 6 squares!)

Actually I've been using a DC 20 Fort save for stabilization for a while now, its worked well.