Tactical detail and complexity, reliance on minis

[Feything]

And adding to that, the players make the game. The game doesn't make the players.
Even if 4E combat is faster and simpler, tactical players that like combat and so will continue to focus on that.
Get some players that match your playing style.

That's what I think too. D&D in its various incarnations has always allowed for many playstyles. 4E combat could be significantly simpler than in 3E and still cater to the tactical players. For me and my group (and the last group I played with), the 3E system seems to lean too much towards satistfying the tactical gamers, hard-wired into the rules to such a degree that it's hard to tone down the tactical elements for people like ourselves.

I suppose there's not really much information to go on yet to determine how this will look in 4E. I'm liking pretty much everything we've been told about 4E so far, so I'm hoping that it will streamline combat somewhat as well.

And Welcome to the Premier D&D Boards of the internet

Thanks! I used to lurk here when it was a 3E news site by Eric Noah, I think I had a username here between 2002-2004 or something like that too, but never posted.
I started gaming again this summer, after a 2 year hiatus, just in time for countdown to 4E it seems, and am glad to see this place is still the best for news and discussion.

 

[GlassJaw]

I mean, they aren't Reaper good, but they are good enough.

Reaper's are very ehh. I'd say they are about equal to WotC's on average.

Now Rackham's new prepainted stuff on the other hand - HOLY have you seen these things?! Amazing.

The tactical aspect of 3ed is what got me back into D&D. That feeling was increased when WotC released their prepainted minis. I'm a sucker for tiles, battlemaps, and minis.

 

[marune]

Well, I like D&D. It's almost a fantasy-subgenre in its own right, and it's hard to find other games that does D&D-fantasy quite as well. I realise tactical combat is part of D&D, but in earlier editions it wasn't as complex and involved as to resemble a game all to itself.
I'm not a grognard putting down "new things". In fact, I had a look at C&C for a solution to the "combat problem" with 3E. I found it to be far too "nostalgia-based", and lacked many of those things I found to be improvements in 3E.
I also don't have as much time for RPGs as I did, which means a game that is well supported with published things for me to easily adapt to my campaign or just use is ideal.

I'm not putting down combat, or "killing things and taking their stuff"-play. I'm just finding that the combat system in 3E is too involved for me and my players. Enough so to break immersion and get in the way of our fun. Especially when during a long battle people would start calling out the game-mechanics of what they're doing (which ability or feat they use) and pushing the counters around on the battlemat rather than describing their actions.
I'd like to see a simpler and faster system either as default or as a well defined option in the core books. Combat in D&D, in my opinion, should be action-sequences, not mini-games (in both senses of the word).

The problem of combat under 3.x is specific, too many complex rules, grappling being the most famous example, but "buff, buff and re-buff" is probably the most important one.

If 4E run smootly in combat, you'll be able to add narration/acting to it without slowing things too much.

I remember playing 2E without a battlemap : players always arguing about AoE spells and such. I won't go back to it in a game like D&D where combat is the main activity.

Also, if you don't like to purchase minis, the good old home-made board with cartboard counters always do the job