D&D 4E My biggest concern about 4E
- Thread starter zoroaster100
- Start date
Aeolius
Adventurer
fabneme said:
If I can't convert my current campaign to the new rules then the new rules are not improved, they are defective. I seamlessly converted a 1e campaign to the 3e rules, long ago. I would hope I could do the same with a 3e to 4e transition. There are many rules I would have to house-rule right from the start, i.e. ignoring any changes to demons, devils, and the planes, keeping monster races a viable solution, and so on.
A quick glance at the 4e Monster Manual will also help my decision. Without sea elves, locathah, and merfolk, then 4e isn't worth considering (undersea campaign). If they drastically alter night hags and their kin, I'll have to change them right back.
None of my players are begging to switch to 4e, though, so perhaps I can wait until 4e has a revised Greyhawk Gazetteer, Savage Species, Stormwrack, and a Players Handbook that includes the bard (as well as rules for psionics, incarnum, Tome of Magic, dread necromancers, etc.)
DreamChaser
Explorer
So the measure of an effective edition change is the ability to convert a highly specialized campaign (which relies upon Stormwrack and a number of other rules that were not released in the initial versions of the current rules)?
Wow! This is quite the impossible bar.
I have a campaign that I already know there is little-to-no chance that I will convert. That, to me, is not a problem with the new rules but rather my desire to maintain the specific flavor and structure of the current rules / campaign. I like 3.5 and will likely keep playing it down the road.
That said, I am already percolating ideas for my new 4e game which will be a new campaign designed to take full advantage of the rules. Clearly at this stage I am only working on fluff.
I don't hold WotC responsible for the fact that they aren't including shugenja as a core class or hengeyokai as a core race. These are niche items that will not come up in 99% of the games out there (like locathah and 90% of the rules in Stormwrack).
DC
Wow! This is quite the impossible bar.
I have a campaign that I already know there is little-to-no chance that I will convert. That, to me, is not a problem with the new rules but rather my desire to maintain the specific flavor and structure of the current rules / campaign. I like 3.5 and will likely keep playing it down the road.
That said, I am already percolating ideas for my new 4e game which will be a new campaign designed to take full advantage of the rules. Clearly at this stage I am only working on fluff.
I don't hold WotC responsible for the fact that they aren't including shugenja as a core class or hengeyokai as a core race. These are niche items that will not come up in 99% of the games out there (like locathah and 90% of the rules in Stormwrack).
DC
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
I really don't understand this sort of concern. As a BSEM-1st ed-2nd ed-3rd ed gamer with a fondness for all things Greyhawk, I don't expect to have any trouble at all running 4E games in the Flanaess, or anywhere else. I have homebrewed multiple campaign settings, none of which are going to give me trouble converting to 4E. Most of the campaign settings I've written or read change the default assumptions from the PHB. This includes Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Pathfinder, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, and many others. These games fail to collapse under the weight of their idiosyncrasy. People can and do play games that barely use the PHB's implied setting, races, classes, and the like. They are easy to remove and easy to replace.
Considering that they're supposedly planning to release a campaign setting each year for at least the next few years, I expect that they've designed the core game to be friendly to the sort of demands that settings make on the core rules. Eberron, for example, is still going to be Eberron, without even a timeline shift to alter continuity. I survived the changes from AD&D 1st edition to 2nd, and then 2nd to 3rd. I have no reason to believe I will somehow be drowned by the coming tide of 4th edition.
Considering that they're supposedly planning to release a campaign setting each year for at least the next few years, I expect that they've designed the core game to be friendly to the sort of demands that settings make on the core rules. Eberron, for example, is still going to be Eberron, without even a timeline shift to alter continuity. I survived the changes from AD&D 1st edition to 2nd, and then 2nd to 3rd. I have no reason to believe I will somehow be drowned by the coming tide of 4th edition.
Simia Saturnalia
First Post
"If 4e doesn't release with every single option released for 3.x over its life cycle, especially niche products with a mediocre reception, the rules are a failure."
...what? I do not even know where to begin correcting you.
Extending this logic, 3e was a failure because Skills and Powers offered more unique options for customization than the PHB did. 2e was a failure because there weren't assassins. It falls apart at first examination.
...what? I do not even know where to begin correcting you.
Extending this logic, 3e was a failure because Skills and Powers offered more unique options for customization than the PHB did. 2e was a failure because there weren't assassins. It falls apart at first examination.
DreamChaser
Explorer
Dr. Awkward said:
Huh...I'd heard that they were advancing Eberron's timeline by 2 years. Is there a specific source otherwise?
DC
DreamChaser
Explorer
Cool. Thanks for the link!
Commonblade
First Post
My biggest concern is the investment I made into 3/3.5. I bought a lot of books, and well unless I intend to keep playing 3.5. I am not sure how useful they will be to me.
Will I switch over to 4th. Yes. Will I abandon 3.5. I hope not.
Will I switch over to 4th. Yes. Will I abandon 3.5. I hope not.
Maggan said:
I wouldn't be so sure about that. TSR also thought it knew its market back in the 90s, and we all know what happened to them. Although market researchers often have pretensions to omniscience, their work is always limited by the available sample. Also, there is always the pressure to tell those who control your job whatever you think they want to hear.
It seems to me that WOTC really knows the hardcore, RPGA gamer part of its market. I don't think they have as firm a grasp on the desires of the larger mass of more casual gamers, because there's no real way for their market researchers to reach those people. If you don't go to GenCon, don't participate in the RPGA, and aren't on the Internet boards, how could WOTC know what you want? Yet the majority of people who play D&D don't do any of the above 3 things.
WOTC can simply look at its book sales, and judge interest by those, but even that can be deceptive. If a book appeals to most of the hardcore gamers, but few of the casual gamers, is that book really a success? It could be a money-maker, but it does nothing to grow the market. Perhaps WOTC wants to sell simply to the hardcore gamers that it knows, and is choosing to ignore the casual gamers. I don't know, but I never assume that corporations are anywhere near as wise as they would like us to believe they are.
Last edited:
