OK, I'm in ...

[Mouseferatu]

I'll give it a fair trial (I'd do it even if I weren't working on the field), but I have one concern that maybe Mouseferatu can shed a light on:

Up until 3e, each class felt very different from each other. Not only were the actions they took different (skulk about, throw fireballs, turn undead, bash heads, etc), but the management of each, the mechanical side, was very different. Some classes had daily resources, others had to worry about their hp, others were all about the skills, etc.

Now, with 4e, every class has mechanically the same management. At 1st level you have two at-wills, an encounter and a daily, wether you're a rogue, fighter or wizard. File off the names and you could swap classes and power sources about.

Could this lead to a saturation level, where it seems that no matter what class you're playing, you're going through the same motions? Like playing only swordsages, just with different stances?

Just a thought that occurred me.

Obviously, I can't guarantee anything. I've only been playing for a few months, myself.

But I doubt it. I never reached the point in 3.5 when a cleric felt like a wizard, or a sorcerer felt like a druid. The classes may have the same number of powers, for the most part, but they're mechanically different, and they play differently. Regardless of what powers you choose, you're not going to play a fighter like you do a rogue.

So no promises, but I'll say that I'm not worried about it.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

*Pouts* I didn't get a t-shirt

I may not be pre-ordering but definately buying the books, (I am getting through a specific store here where I have a glorious amount of gift-cards equalling a total of: $65)

 

[Doug McCrae]

Could this lead to a saturation level, where it seems that no matter what class you're playing, you're going through the same motions?

Same recharge mechanic, different powers. They've done a good job of making them feel different, from what I've seen so far. The paladin's 'martyr' ability is particularly flavourful.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'll go into what my specific sticking points are in a moment, but I would like to address classes being similar. The fact is that you can do a lot of different character concepts without having a lot of character classes. Don't believe it? Try True20, where they have a total of three classes and some settings exclude one of those classes entirely (the adept). If you were to completely remove class abilities and replace them with feats/abilities that anyone can take, you are given the ultimate freedom to make whatever character you want. In fact, with True20, you could run a Modern game just fine with a party full of Experts.

One area where I'm definitely in the pro-4E category is making all character classes useful in all encounters with the abilities per encounter/day. I think that's a good call since it should eliminate all the encounters where the wizard is counting the bricks on the floor since he can't do anything meaningful in combat once his one spell is shot. Streamlining play is a good thing. Eliminating pointless iterative attacks is good. Eliminating a lot of pointless number crunching is also good. Greatly reducing prep time goes beyond good and way into the great category.

So my hangups with 4E are the following: Making Dragonborne and Tieflings core while ditching the gnome and half orc. OK, so I'm not that big of a gnome fan, but I do think Half-orcs should be in the first core book. I also think changing the height of the classic core races is change that seems like its purely for the sake of change, nevermind that using it breaks the continuity in a person's game world.

Mechanically, things like healing surge worry me. I'm not saying that every party should be forced to have a cleric whether they want one or not. I have read the rationalization for them and that sets my mind at ease somewhat, but I worry that fighters and other traditionally non-magical classes will start acting more like magic classes. I'm not sure I understand what they mean when they refer to power sources. Give me some examples or show me where they're posted so I can get a better idea how this doesn't change the flavor of the game.

Diagonal movement is another one of those things that just seems to break the verisimilitude of the game. Sure monsters can have the same advantage, but this just seems to remove the attempt at simulating realism in the game.

If casting is no longer Vancian, how does this work now? You still pick your spells. Do most of them just count as once per day? If so, how is that different from what we have now?

 

[Andor]

I see this posted alot, but in this case I honestly mean it:

This is a feature, not a bug.

Maybe.. not. One of the pluses to D&D is that the breadth of options includes a variety of playstyle options. There is a tremendous variety in the amount of effort needed to buy in to playing different classes properly.

For example in 3.x a barbarian has few tricks, and those tricks don't change much. A new feat every few levels and that's it.

A rogue or fighter has a more flexible range of options and has to have a deeper understanding of his opponents abilities to perform optimally, but still does not take hours of research to play well.

A wizard has hundreds of spells to select from and has to know them at least superficially, although in play he only has to be intimately familiar with the contents of his spellbook.

A cleric or druid has almost instant access to any of hundreds of spells and so optimal play of a divine caster requires far more study on the part of a player.

And for any given player, and possibly even for any given game, different levels of this buy-in appeal. Sometimes you just want to sit down and play your fighter, other times you relish knowing you have the perfect spell at your fingertips. If all character require the same amount of effort to play, you have lost options for the players and that's not good.

 

[Wolfspider]

I'm pre-ordering my core rulebooks right now, in fact....

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Man, I'm going to be trapped on an uninhabited island off the coast of B.C. when the books are released. My house is 4158 km from the island. I won't have a reliable mailing address there, but I'll be damned if I'm going to wait until August, when I get home, to look at 4e. I'm going to have to pick it up on one of my forays into civilization...which means I can't benefit from Amazon's pricing.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

That be the perfect setting too read to, B.C. is very peaceful

 

[Atlatl Jones]

Honestly, I don't completely disagree. The power level seems higher (but then it seemed higher too when I saw 3E for the first time ... "OMG, +4 to attack and damage at 1st level!!! Broken!!!"). Hit points and some of the other numbers are certainly higher. But then we know some of the things that scale ridiculously in 3E are out, like iterative attacks.

We should also remember that we have only seen characters at 1st level. 4e characters do seem much more survivable and effective at 1st level than 3e 1st level characters, but I consider that a feature, not a bug. 3e characters were so incredibly fragile at 1st level that few people enjoyed playing at that level.

But just because 1st level characters are more robust than their 3e equivalents doesn't mean that that's true at all levels. The power curve is different in 4e. It's flatter, from what we've seen. Character start out more robust, but don't improve exponentially like in earlier editions. Just look at the Paladin Smites article. Some of the high level powers (16th and 27th, IIRC) would be ludicrously weak in a 3e game.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Now, with 4e, every class has mechanically the same management. At 1st level you have two at-wills, an encounter and a daily, wether you're a rogue, fighter or wizard. File off the names and you could swap classes and power sources about.

This is my concern as well. I've seen something very like this in an MMO I play, EQ, in the transition from the first version of it (spellcasters cast spells, melee just hit things) to the second version (spellcasters cast spells, melee use 'combat arts' - which are basically just spells for melee). Where playing different classes was very different before, now I find them very similar in mechanics (though differing in role) - to the point that I even map my key functions pretty close to the same on each character (numpad 8 to start a special maneuver, numpad 5 to advance it, numpad 2 to finish it, numpad 4 for a damage attack usually combined with a stun or stifle effect). EVERY alt I play from numerous classes has this same set up, different spells or CAs but nearly the same functionality mapped to the same key. Sometimes I even forget which class I'm playing because... it doesn't much matter (hit 8, hit 5, hit 2, hit 4, hit...).

I look at the powers for 4e & see... 8 spellcasters. Sure, the names of the powers are different - 'spells' vs. 'prayers' vs. 'exploits'. Spells require an implement in your hand; prayers require a weapon or focus in your hand; exploits usually require a weapon in your hand... same, same, same. Class skills are different - but there are so few skills now that I'm not sure how much that will matter, & you're either fully trained for your entire career or not trained at all - no fine-tuning of small skills, no going just far enough for a synergy bonus & then shifting your skill points in future levels to other places. The roles are different - at least, to the extent that there are 4 of them, anyway. Exactly 4, never a character who puts things together in such a way as to grow beyond the predesigned roles & into something unique, from what little we've seen about multiclassing - 'fighter w/ rogue topping' indeed. As much as the glut of 3.5e sourcebooks has made character creation a massive undertaking, it does allow for some truly interesting characters who can do really unique things (hmm, let's put together a bit of this with a dash of that & a pinch of... WHOA who'd have thought THAT would work! Woo-hoo!). Now it's just... bland, frankly, IMO.

I was the only one in my gaming groups excited about 4e, & I've been eagerly reading everything we've seen for months. I've had the PHB pre-ordered, but... I don't know now. I'm not really sure this is the game I want to play. I may have to just wish good gaming to those to whom it appeals, & wander off into the misty grognardine hills.

*utters a forlorn wavering call as the mists envelope him*