Unexpected Reactions

[Raven Crowking]

I have to admit that I am having some mixed reactions to the tidbits of 4e that are coming out. Some of the things that they are doing are, IMHO, not what I want to see in the game. But other things seem to be steps in the right direction. Some few things make me think that WotC was actually listening to the rants of myself and others.

Static XP, extending the sweet spot, points of light as a default, and fighting styles (what I called 'em in my house rules) are all great ideas, and for some of them I might have to amend my rules document when the SRD comes out (after all, their versions might be better than my versions). That static XP is especially good, because we are finally seeing the admission that the 3.0/3.5 CR and XP systems contained some serious flaws. And, once more, we are getting a Monster Level system. Woo hoo!

I'm glad to hear that the monster stat blocks will be pared down. Any design goal that reduces DM workload, without impairing the DM's options, is IMHO a good one.

I started using a 30-level baseline with parred down abilities ala Monte Cook's AE, and it is nice to see that appear in the Core. I wish they'd have reduced the reliance on magic somewhat, though, as it seems like the Core will be even more high magic than the current. The social interaction rules seem to be more like my houserules (yoinked from Dynasties & Demogogues), which is again a good thing.

Anyway, that they could even get me to consider looking at this new edition is, IMHO, a major accomplishment.

I wonder if they'll still use the weapon size rules from 3.5, or steal the much-better ones from AE?

RC

 

[MarkAHart]

The designers have mentioned they pay attention to consumer comments and feedback. From what I have heard and read, it sounds like the Monster Manual IV feedback had a direct impact on the design of MMV, as an example.

The designers working on 4e play D&D, work on D&D, have their own home campaigns, etc. Based on everything I've read and heard so far, these are men and women passionate about D&D and designing a good game. I think that the designers have probably voiced many of the same complaints and comments about the game amongst themselves that they have read on the forums and heard at conventions. Scratch the surface, and the designers are gamers, so their willingness to pay attention to other gamers doesn't surprise me.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

My reactions have been unmixed thus far...mostly. I'm looking forward to 4e a great deal. The only kernel of doubt that has crept into my mind has been the focus of the articles and staff blogs on the numbers. How these numbers interact with those numbers and how it all affects these other numbers over here. I'm a fluffy kind of guy (there, I said it, and I feel better for it) so I'm hoping that the numbers don't take precedence over everything else.

 

[Greatwyrm]

I agree with most of the stuff you said. However, I think I'm surprised at how much the DI idea has grown on me. The DM toolbox, character generator, and having online versions of my books and Dragon and Dungeon are really starting to appeal to me. On top of that, I'm not even planning to use it to run games online, since I don't think anybody else in my group is going to pay for the service. Still, a subscription to Dungeon and Dragon and being able to alt-tab to nice electronic copies of my books while I'm running MapTool will be very nice.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree with most of the stuff you said. However, I think I'm surprised at how much the DI idea has grown on me.

Still leaves me icy cold.

And, MarkAHart, while I realize that the designers run D&D games, too, I thought I was definitely in the minority with some of my (apparently addressed) complaints.

RC

 

[Irda Ranger]

I have to admit that I am having some mixed reactions to the tidbits of 4e that are coming out.

Er, you only have good things to say in the post. What don't you like? Lack of gnomes?

So far I'm liking pretty much everything I hear. Which is odd, since normally you take "the good with the bad."

I'm bummed that DI is PC-only though (which I assume means "Windows only", since both Max OS X and Linux both run on x86 "PC's"). That kills it for me and most of my group.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Er, you only have good things to say in the post.

I actually cut all my complaints out before posting. I am trying not to be too negative.

In any event, it is the positive things (those which move away from the 3.0 to 3.5 direction, and back toward earlier editions) that surprise and please me.

I could make a big list of the things I don't like, if you want.

 

[SWBaxter]

I wonder if they'll still use the weapon size rules from 3.5, or steal the much-better ones from AE?

If the AE ones are the same as in Arcana Unearthed (I think that's the case, but I only have the latter so don't know for sure), then they're pretty much the 3E D&D version - the ones the 3.5 rules replaced.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

They will not use AE rules. I think that's fair to say. Perhaps some inspiration, but OGL flows from Wizards (in scraps once you're past the core books) and not toward them.

That said, the OP is onto something. A lot of what is said sounds good. I'm waiting to see the implementation. The DI honestly impedes me because my home PC is...old. I can't afford to upgrade to handle all of it. Nor can I get the laptop that I would like to have at the table. If those computer issues change, well. Who knows?

 

[Raven Crowking]

They will not use AE rules. I think that's fair to say. Perhaps some inspiration, but OGL flows from Wizards (in scraps once you're past the core books) and not toward them.

They can use whatever is Open Content. I am not sure what qualifies in the AE or AU.

RC