What are the biggest threats?

[nutluck]

The biggest threat? I agree that they will probably go a "Bridge Too Far" in the sacred cow slaughter, somewhere. And then they won't go far enough elsewhere.

That is my biggest concern the more I read the more i think they will take 4e just far enough to annoy die hards that loved old aspects of DnD and not far enough to really interest new people or bring those back that left for varies reasons.

 

[Exen Trik]

Paying attention to people who don't really like D&D in the first place.

Well, for those who prefer other systems yes. But those who turn away from D&D and gaming in general because of one or two elements of it need to be paid attention to. No need to bend over backwards for them, but if an impediment to getting new players can be addressed all the better.

Biggest mistakes that could be catastrophic? An error-filled 4E Player's Handbook (and DMG and MM); a D&D Insider system that is buggy and does not deliver on its promises.

Total agreement here. Better to do it right the first time, I put off buying lots of supplements because of that. Many things were so broken I didn't even bother.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Personally, though, I like prestige classes. They did some stupid examples (IMHO), but the basic idea is a good one.

There was nothing wrong with prestige classes, as an idea. Often, there was nothing wrong with them in practice, either. Where the problem came in was:

1. We have problem X.
2. We also have these nifty new prestige class things that fills what kits wanted to do, only better.

Hey, I know. We'll solve problem X with our new, nifty thing. Even when the problem is really fundamental to the ruleset, and can only be glossed over with a prestige class.

It's like quality, inexpensive antibiotic cream. It's great that we have it and all, but you don't want Jimmy trying to fix his amputated ear lobe with it.

Now, I'm pretty sure that the 4E designers have thought long and hard about this in regards to prestige classes. They've probably got a good idea of how to limit prestige classes to their appropriate areas. Where I worry is whatever the 4E equivalent situation will be.

 

[mcrow]

The digital initiative is a good point of concern.

With all the resources and money they are putting into it, it would be bad if it tanked.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, I'm pretty sure that the 4E designers have thought long and hard about this in regards to prestige classes. They've probably got a good idea of how to limit prestige classes to their appropriate areas. Where I worry is whatever the 4E equivalent situation will be.

You know, I think you're right.

 

[catsclaw227]

Hey, he asked for opinions and you don't like it because I gave him one?

Judging by your post count, you've been around here long enough to know the difference between an opinion about a thread topic and a threadcrap. Please.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The biggest mistake WoTC will make is the one that has been made in ever edition of the game.

Trying to do do much without keeping in touch with things that have gone on before or are going on at the same time. Various supplements that will repeat with slightly altered data various mechanics that will lead to various waste as mechanics that build on those repeated mechanics are introduced but are incompatible with the other mechanics. (How many various types of luck components do we have in the game for example?)

In books, we'll see different types of fiction that portrays a setting as X and then another book where it's Y. Some will point out this as a setting strength, but much like complaints about comic settings, when there are known quantities that are not used because they don't fit author A's perceptions of the world, that book is now no longer about that world, but the author's take of that world. Good for story telling,bad for portraying how a game system is supposed to be reflected in the rules.

 

[Korgoth]

Do you play 3rd edition?

Played 3.0 all the way from 1st to 16th level, ran a campaign in 3.0, played in a 3.5 campaign. I do not play it now because I decided that I don't like it.

 

[jasin]

But, it's not a matter of punishment. That's your "player entitlement" slant on it. The player is not entitled to play a PrC, he has to earn it. One way is to give up some power or utility.

IMO, the player is entitled to play a concept he and the DM agree is appropriate for the game. If both wizards and Bizarre Bugbear Hunter Wizards are appropriate, I don't see why players who want to play BBHW have to make any sacrifices compared to players who want to play wizards. If BBHWs aren't appropriate, they simply shouldn't be available, rather than being underpowered in order to limit their attractiveness, because designing like that will also limit their attractiveness in games where they are appropriate. And this seems counter-productive for roleplaying and engaging the setting and the plot.

An example: let's say you want to run a Three Musketeers inspired game. Druids aren't really appropriate, and neither is the Four Winds Ninja PrC. However, rogues, fighters and the duelist PrC are very appropriate. So you just your players nicely to play rogues, fighters and duelists, and not play druids and Four Winds Ninjas.

OTOH, if PrCs are deliberately designed to be weaker than core classes, the players always have incentive to play fighters, rogues and druids rather than Four Winds Ninjas and duelists.

How is this a good thing?

In 3E, PrCs are often a LOT more powerful than core classes. That is one of the problems I think needs addressing.

But in 3E, clerics are often a lot more powerful than monks. That's almost as much of a problem as the loremaster being more powerful than the wizard. And there are many PrCs which are less powerful than core classes, they just don't get as much exposure.

Overpowered PrCs are a problem because they're overpowered, not because they're PrCs. Making all PrCs underpowered keeps the problem, just shifting its location elsewhere.

 

[Felon]

What do you think the biggest threat to D&D 4E?

IOW, what do you think will the biggest mistake WoTC could make with D&D 4E given the info we know now?

Thinking upon sentences like "everybody will be able to do something cool every round" and "OK, your role, we'll give that to you for free..." lead me wondering what exactly characters will be doing in a round when they're getting their role-related abilities "for free" (presumably meaning turning those abilities into free actions or otherwise not requiring the character spend his entire round doing it). Defenders won't actually have to fixate on defending, leaders won't actually have to devote a round to casting a party buff, so what's the rest of their round for? Seems to me that there's really just one "cool thing" for everyone to be doing: damage.

Check out playtester Crhis Thomasson's comments: "I've played every iteration of 4th Edition. I can easily say, this is the best, by far. Every class did something cool, on every round. And each class approached the game in a different way. The paladin was exacting divine retribution, the ranger was blasting the crap out of stuff with his bow, and the wizard was blowing bad guys up with very cool spells".

(I had to pare down the quote because I got tired of seeing the word "cool" every other sentence. Please, if you're representing WotC, try to find a more substantial adjectives to describe 4e elemnts other than "cool", because it's starting to make the game sound like it's catering to pinheads.)

Notice how every class is doing "something cool" that supposedly "approaches the game in a different way", but it's all really just damage-dishing. I don't know that it's good for the game for everybody to be a killing machine, as "cool" as that may be for the individual.

I also worry about the design tema as a whole. I trust Mearls and thing if he was in charge this game would no doubt be D&D. The other guys, I'm not so sure of.

Mearls has some bad character design habits that evidenced themselves both in Iron Heroes and in the PHB II's knight. He is very much guilty of "kitchen-sinking" his classes, overstuffing them with every ability he thinks the class should have. It's often not even a tree-based selection which allows some diversity between builds; you generally just get all the goodies. He also like his classes to very self-sufficient, and not have any rock-paper-scissors type of obvious weaknesses.