D&D 4E Monte Cook on 4E

[Shortman McLeod]

This is one of the main reasons why switching over to 4e does not appeal to me. I have 3.5 rules to cover nearly any possible option regarding races, character, monsters, magic, and so forth. Why should I switch to a game that will limit me in that regard?

Maybe after four or five years I will be able to look at 4e and see something close to the amount of options available to me now with 3.5....

Of course, by that time it will be time for 5e.

 

[Eldragon]

I think Monte is right, 4e to 3e is very different from 2e to 3e. There is FAR, FAR more dissention over switching to 4e now than people objecting to 3e.

However, it is probably going to be easier to get people to switch to 4e because active players are at least paying attention to new releases while disaffected players no longer care, and don't know what is going on.

I think its possible for WotC to offer incentives to get people to switch from 3.5e to 4e, and spur mass adoption of the new rules.

For Example, What if WotC said "For the months of June and July, players can turn in their old 3e PHB, DMG, and MM and get $5 off the 4e version".

So for all those who refuse to go 4e (for perfectly valid reasons) would you be willing to upgrade to 4e if you have a discount on your books?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why do you think he has Sue as his editor?

And seriously, Sue Cook should get multiple awards for Ptolus. I've read about 400 pages of it at this point and I have found a grand total of TWO typos/word errors. Awesome stuff.

After I finished reading it the first time, I had found three errors. So you are on pace to match me.

 

[Wolfspider]

I think its possible for WotC to offer incentives to get people to switch from 3.5e to 4e, and spur mass adoption of the new rules.

For Example, What if WotC said "For the months of June and July, players can turn in their old 3e PHB, DMG, and MM and get $5 off the 4e version".

HA!

 

[Kraydak]

"WotC may have some design issues, but if a top level 3rd party product was as flat out unedited as IH, then 3rd party products are not for me. (seriously, had *anyone* but Mearls read it before publishing? Had he gone back and done basic sanity checks??)"

For what it is worth, I'm pretty sure that Mike Mearls was hired by WotC before Iron Heroes was entirely finished. They probably had to do a rush job on the line to get it published before his exclusive contract for WotC kicked in. I don't have a citation for this, but the timing was about right, since Mearls left Malhavoc and started working for WotC before the third IH supplement hit the printers, IIRC.

As for unbalanced mechanics in IH, that doesn't reflect nearly as much on third party products as a whole as it does on Mike Mearls' specific design philosophies. I guess what I am getting at is that, IH, being wholely the responsibility and brainchild of Mike Mearls is probably the best indicator we have of the quality he is capable of. His joining the WotC team does not suddenly make him blessed with greater insight and skill than he had before.

Not to rederail the thread, but I probably overspoke in regards to IH. The design theory behind IH was interesting (and the reason I bought the book). The game, however, needed a few hundred more hours of playtesting and some serious editorial work. The save DCs were all over the place (most token ability saves were very low DC. Some, included the Archer's save-or-die IIRC, were instead unsaveable.) The Armiger didn't work. The Harrier had abilities whose descriptions didn't parse. Stunting was OMGWTF broken (hint: using jump to stunt for more movement to use jump to stunt for damage is a *bad* idea). At least one combination of Power Attack or Cleave feat masteries looked like a 3AM brainstorm session (free movement and extra attacks for every hit that did over 10 damage? something like that).

That is what put me off 3rd party products: if such a high profile product, from a relatively high profile 3rd party company, was so poorly playtested, I didn't see any reason to buy more 3rd party stuff. People may complain about WotC balancing, but at least you can rely on their 3ed stuff working from level 1 to 10. (past 10 it gets iffy, a fact which, when combined with a dearth of 4e P and E playtesting reports is somewhat worrisome. Not overly, just somewhat) WotC is big enough to invest in editing and playtesting. That makes their products worth my money. I, at least, am not really paying for the ideas (which I could produce on my own) but rather the playtesting work (which I can't really).

 

[Plane Sailing]

the Athletics skill

Yay! A scoop!

I wonder if it incorporates climbing and jumping?

BTW Logan, I hope that someone is championing the Ranger - it was one of the classes that didn't have a champion in 3.0e and it really showed (e.g. in the major revisions for 3.5e for the class)

Cheers

 

[DaveMage]

So for all those who refuse to go 4e (for perfectly valid reasons) would you be willing to upgrade to 4e if you have a discount on your books?

No. Unless by "discount" you mean "free", and by "upgrade" you mean "check it out".

And, actually, if there is an SRD, that might be such an opportunity.

 

[Eldragon]

No. Unless by "discount" you mean "free", and by "upgrade" you mean "check it out".

And, actually, if there is an SRD, that might be such an opportunity.

The SRD is really what caused the my group to switch from 3.0 to 3.5, and will probably help us switch to 4e (assuming we will). Not having an SRD would probably really hurt adoption.

 

[delericho]

I'd agree, but as has been mentioned (I think), a lot of the things he's posted on his website are also ideas that are echoed in 4e development. Spellcasting, for example.

Indeed. I would be fascinated to see exactly what Monte would have come up with on 4e. I also find it interesting to consider what 3e would have been like had they had enough time to get through all the things they didn't quite have time to do (such as that 20-level spellcasting system).

My suspicion is that those two games would look very much the same, but that they'd both look quite different from what we'll see in 4e. I imagine more of an evolution of the 3e mechanics, rather than the more revolutionary aspects of 4e. Whether this would be a better game (for me) or not, I don't know - my tastes have shifted in the last couple of years towards a simpler ruleset, and both Monte and Mike Mearls seem to lean towards a more complex ruleset.

 

[Greg K]

So for all those who refuse to go 4e (for perfectly valid reasons) would you be willing to upgrade to 4e if you have a discount on your books?

No, because to date the only things that I have heard that remotely interest me are:
- Spellcasters being weakened to be balanced with other classes
- Removal of the Christmas Tree syndrome
- Removal of Vancian Magic (not sure I like the replacement)
- the possibility of Talent Trees (as per d20M and Star Wars)
- FeyWild and the other lands (I'm not attached to the Great Wheel and this fits closer to my homebrew)
- Fighting styles (still waiting to hear more, but worried they will look like Bo9S)
- wizard implements

As for pretty much everything else revealed, they have been major turn offs- especially the paring down the skill list ( a deal breaker in and of itself as it was with Star Wars: SE), the new approach to monsters, abilities triggered upon being reduced to half hit points, sneak attack still built into the rogue, and the new paladin smite mechanics