D&D 4E Not going to 4e

[Darrin Drader]

The truth of the matter is that a while back I embraced True20 as my preferred game for everything but fantasy roleplaying. I've adopted it for modern, post-apocalyptic, and futuristic settings. The only reason I haven't done that with the fantasy genre thus far is because I like the concept of hit points and Vancian magic. On the other hand, there are aspects of True20 that I have imported to D&D - namely not having every special attack provoke an attack of opportunity and using the simplified version of those special attacks. I've considered adopting the character options, including feats and skills, but have so far decided that all that is tied too closely with the Toughness save rather than hit points.

The point here is that if I were in charge of 4E, it would look much more like True20. Fortunately for me and my group, True20 already exists, so I think we'll keep on playing it. If I decide to go to 4E, it will probably only be for the virtual playing environment, which I actually find very appealing. Even then, my D&D purchases will be few and far between. I'll be limiting myself to the core books and only the supplemental stuff that I actually see myself using on a regular basis.

 

[Aeolius]

Once 4E comes out, it's unlikely that the first campaign idea I'll have will support teiflings, dragonborn, halflings or half-elves. They'll be core races but I can excise them just as easily as any non-core or third party book.

My current chat-based D&D campaign has a half-vampire sea elf, a half-fey sea elf, a mermaid, a sea elf, a sahuagin, a warforged, and an oceanid (race of my own design). For obvious reasons, I do not allow core races in my game at all, at least for use by players. The game, as with the majority of my other campaigns, is set in the World of Greyhawk.

I do not object to change. My prior PbP campaign, also set underwater, switched from the 1e rules to 3e rules almost overnight. I do object to the notion that WOtC wants me to abandon my current campaigns and begin anew.

WotC also wants me to purchase a new Intel-based Mac and a copy of Windows, to run the D&D Insider apps. No thank you. It isn't my fault that they chose to design the VTT and Character Generator, in such a way that Mac users are excluded. I realize that one does not need the D&DI apps to play 4e, but WotC doesn't need to be so narrow-minded in their program design, either.

When I can convert my current campaign, then I'll consider 4e. 4e needs Stormwrack, Savage Species, and the Greyhawk Gazetteer, to be a viable solution for my campaign needs. A conversion manual, "The Grognard's Guide to playing 4e (like 3.5e)", would also be helpful. 4e needs cross-platform support for all of their applications, before I will subscribe to the D&D Insider.

 

[Elf Witch]

I am not planning on switching and my players have no desire to switch either. So far most of what we have read has left my group cold.

I have a lot of books that I have not gotten to use yet so there are things I want to still try. I also like this edition a lot and I see no reason to change for the sake of change. Maybe if I had issues with 3.5 I would be looking forward to 4E.

 

[Sunderstone]

The very first question you should ask the GM when you sit down at that table is 'Can I please see your list of what books are allowed and what changes you've made to the core books?'.

I find this statement somewhat entertaining as most Pro-4E folks read along these lines. A Shiny, Brand New edition is coming and the 4E folks are already saying you can cut X and Y out of your game fairly easily. And while you are at it, you can easily modify Z as well.

A brand new edition and folks still have to ask their GM "what changes you've made to the (as yet brand new) core books". Granted some folks will not use all the stuff or may modify the stuff. Its just funny that many in the Pro-4E camp are already making plans as to what they will cut out of the oh so good 4E "Core".

The new and improved Core (as wotc says it will be) shouldnt need that much cut out of it to satisfy what appears to be alot of people, pro-4E folks included.

Let me cut the left door off of my new fridge, I really dont use that side of the fridge much anyway.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

I find this statement somewhat entertaining as most Pro-4E folks read along these lines. A Shiny, Brand New edition is coming and the 4E folks are already saying you can cut X and Y out of your game fairly easily. And while you are at it, you can easily modify Z as well.

A brand new edition and folks still have to ask their GM "what changes you've made to the (as yet brand new) core books". Granted some folks will not use all the stuff or may modify the stuff. Its just funny that many in the Pro-4E camp are already making plans as to what they will cut out of the oh so good 4E "Core".

The new and improved Core (as wotc says it will be) shouldnt need that much cut out of it to satisfy what appears to be alot of people, pro-4E folks included.

Let me cut the left door off of my new fridge, I really dont use that side of the fridge much anyway.

Modifying "core" happens all the time in 3.5, I hardly see how the same thing makes 4E less viable. I play Living Greyhawk and Xen'drik Expeditions. Both campaigns disallow things that are considered core. Yet we make modifications and play on. I can't name a single home game that hasn' modified core sources.

I've seen plenty of compelling personal statements as to why folks won't switch, this one just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Fifth Element]

I find this statement somewhat entertaining as most Pro-4E folks read along these lines. A Shiny, Brand New edition is coming and the 4E folks are already saying you can cut X and Y out of your game fairly easily. And while you are at it, you can easily modify Z as well.

Totally unfair characterization. Such comments are made in response to those who say they will never ever ever play 4E if it has dragonborn or Golden Wyvern Adept in it.

D&D has always been houseruled by some groups; 4E will be the same, and there's no reason to deny it.

The "4e folks", as you call them, seem to be the ones willing to try the new stuff before passing judgment. Many of them will also eventually houserule some things, but at least they'll try the game first.

 

[Sunderstone]

I dont deny there will be house ruling, or modifying. Everyone does. I just find it amusing that people plan to modify so much of the new Core so early.

Sorry if I wasnt clearer before

 

[Sylrae]

1) "Wizard should never have to fall back on a dagger, staff, or crossbow"
2) "No more 'dead levels'"
3) "Paladins don't have to be LG"
4) "Playing a support character isn't fun"
5) "1st-level PCs should be 'heroes'", 'heroes' meaning super-tough

I'm all for 2, ive been implementing 3 as long as I've been DMing (I hate the paladin base class so much it doesn't exist - it's a prestige class mirroring blackguard), I've only seen a cleric with healing once (which doesn't concern me, my players just buy more healing gear which I make cheaper) and I flat out disagree with 5 and 1.
-edit: Maybe I'll add cure to wizard spells too or make a clerical variant of the wizard and drop the cleric, we'll see. If I do I'll put it in houserules...
The reason I'm all for 2 is I'd like it if players didnt multiclass to avoid them.

I've been playing since 3e came out roughly, but the fact of the matter is, I've only half upgraded to 3.5... I bought supplement books and applied them to my 3e game, and updated classes and spells using the srd. I only own the 3e core book and 2e core books, I don't have the ones for 3.5 (I plan on getting them shortly into the new year before they're hard to find.)

I find myself upgrading 2e stuff to 3e so I can use it, and 4e seems to promote much of the powergaming that turns me off of D&D. I'm in a game right now where character turnover is almost once per session for everyone, and you need to powergame to last to a second session. Ive decided that after this character dies I'm done with this DM. I bought WoW, and it kept me interested for about a week before I sold it to a friend because of its repetitiveness. I may get it again if my girlfriend gets it, just to hang out with her and play a game with her.

3.5 has some issues that need to be addressed, yes. 4e is (IMO) removing some of them, but also introducing new issues I wont like and will need to fix, or retrofit, if you will. Personally, I think it's time for a 3.75e, but not 4e doesn't fix everything, it fixes some and breaks others. I see myself playing 3.5 with some 4e rules and called shots and no grid combat.

I should note I bought the sword and sorcery World of Warcraft d20 book, but thats because I like the warcraft setting, just not the powergaming.

 

[Sunderstone]

btw, no offense to my calling some of you "the 4E folks", as some of us are called "grognards" all the time.

 

[Creeping Death]

Our group is not going to 4e. While several of the promised mechanics sound great, we hate the flavor. We all prefer the Great Wheel cosmology (Planescape) and spelljammer.

I do not like the level 30 cap either. I've converted most of the dark eight to 3e and I have them pegged around CR 40-50 or so. Most campaigns we play will never get that far, but we do some one shots every once in a while and it is fun rolling up high level characters and doing something out of the ordinary.

We will continue to play 3e, we are starting up starwars, and we might do C&C or Iron Heroes.

Later,