D&D 4E What can change your opinion about 4E?

[Derren]

Many people here probably know me as 4E hater and while I am so far pretty anti 4E is am not, like what most people probably think, fanatical meaning there are things which can change my opinion of 4E and I invite everyone else, no matter if he belongs to the pro, anti or wait and see camp, to also post what part of 4E will likely change their opinion of 4E (for good or worse) when it is done well or bad.

For me the primary thing is rituals. In my view they symbolize how combat focused 4E will be. If rituals are diverse, accessible for players and monsters alike, statted out as opposed to another reference to rule 0 "do whatever you want" and most importantly idependant from combat balance then I will likely change my opinion of 4E to "quite ok".

Another, but less important thing is how the game handles out of combat things. Here I don't want a abstract set of skill checks to solve any problem but rules how to handle common situations (and suggestions how to handle uncommon ones) but nothing more. The PCs and DM should decide when to use which rule and how the world reacts to what the PCs do.
The Escape from Sembia preview is exactly what I don't want (abstract rules of "making X rolls to succeed") but depending on how the final rules look like it can still become something I am neutral or only slightly negative about.

So as you see its very unlikely that I will become a big "pro 4E" guy, but depending on how the above rules will look I might play 4E regulary instead of buying the core books out of interest and then searching for another RPG to play.

So, what are your "critical rules" which will change your opinion 180° or will just tip you from "wait and see" into the pro or anti camp?.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

I am pretty strongly in the pro 4E camp, though I have been far less vocal than many on these boards.

I cannot think of a single rule (or even group of rules) that would make be become suddenly anti 4E.

Some things that could bother me:

1. Level advancement rules that "don't make sense" to me; whatever that means.
2. Rituals (or other powers) making scry-buff-teleport possible on a repeated/regular basis.
3. Detailed magic item creation rules; I don't want them. I'd rather see something like DMG 1st edition than anything near like what was in 3rd edition. 3rd edition magic item creation rules took the "magic" out of magic items.
4. Class/race/level limit crap like 1st and 2nd edition had. I think there is zero chance of this, but I guess it is possible.
5. Non-combat encounter rules that simulate "combat" a la[/li] use this per encounter power to influence this encounter; this per day power to day power to influence some other encounter, etc.

That's really all that comes to mind quickly. I guess I could sit around and imagine worst case scenarios all day, but I don't see them coming.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hi Derren,
yes, its pretty obvious that you are anti 4e. But i like your posts, because they often lead to a good discussion.

The skill system could have become a deal breaker, but the way rodney thompson describes it, it will be as i already played it for years now, and thus from now on i am clearly pro 4e.

Rituals have to be really badly implemented to make me anti 4e again.

One last thing:
I know you started with 3rd edition. I started DMing with 3rd edition but played ADnD 2nd edition before. Our old DM refused to switch to 3rd edition because he didn´t like beeing that constrained by rules. For me that rules were a big help at the beginning, but after 8 years of 3rd edition, i finally understand him.

If 3rd edition is the system you and your players like, by all means don´t switch. If you have good houserules (which we also had in 2nd edition) there is no need to switch. But if you get invited to try out 4e then take the chance.

 

[Umbran]

So, what are your "critical rules" which will change your opinion 180° or will just tip you from "wait and see" into the pro or anti camp?.

Unless the 4e rules turn out to either stink like fetid dingo kidneys, or the book glows on the bookshelf due to their sheer magnificence, I am unlikely to fall into the camp of either extreme.

I am of the opinion that no set of rules is good for everything - that fundamentally, it is impossible for one to be good for everything. Thus, only rarely is a game actually outright bad - they are only good or bad with respect to what I'm trying to accomplish in a particular campaign.

There is no reason to love or hate 4e - there is reason to recognize what it does well, and what it does poorly, and to use it when you want its strengths.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Playing it and not liking it afterwards. At this time, I think that actually reading the rules and using them in play is the only thing that could change my (positive) opinion.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Nothing at this point will stop me from purchasing and trying 4E.

The only thing that can change my opinion is if I find running 4E as much of a chore as I do 3E. 3E started out fun and it was interesting to stat out classed monsters, advancing creatures, templating, etc. to try to come up with more unique antagonists. But over time that interest faded and I find myself not wanting to run anymore. If 4E's promises of making the game easier and more enjoyable for the DM fall flat, my opinion will change and I will probably move on to other hobbies all together after 25 years of D&D.

 

[Cadfan]

What would be a deal breaker?

I can't think of anything plausible that would be a deal breaker. There are certainly things that I might not like, but I can't think of any that would be so big as to overshadow what I know about and DO like.

4e really looks like 3e to me, except with mechanical improvements. It really looks like a lot of the same design goals went into 4e, except that now we have the experience of playing 3e for most of a decade to guide design. Look at the attack v defense system we have in 4e. Its basically the same thing we had in 3e, except it eliminated a bit of unnecessary complexity by rolling Reflex and Touch AC into one thing. Or look at saving throws v magic. Your top saving throw in 3e followed a progression that was basically stat modifier plus one half your level, and it targeted a defense that followed a somewhat arcane progression that, in the end, came out very close to stat modifier plus one half your level on average, with adjustment by class. Now that's been standardized, and combined with normal attack rolling, to create one system.

Its the same thing, just a little more polished. It feels like the same game to me, and I like 3e.

There are a few things that will really make me mad, but they're mostly things that are true of 3e as well, and I'm already accustomed to getting over them. They include, for the most part, not permitting viable swashbuckler, samurai, or wandering swordsman archetypes. The D&D "style" of having the archetypal fighting be a full plate armored tank is a bit unusual in the realm of fantasy, and I'd prefer a little more support for something lighter.

 

[Kel]

For me the primary thing is rituals. In my view they symbolize how combat focused 4E will be. If rituals are diverse, accessible for players and monsters alike, statted out as opposed to another reference to rule 0 "do whatever you want" and most importantly idependant from combat balance then I will likely change my opinion of 4E to "quite ok".

Another, but less important thing is how the game handles out of combat things. Here I don't want a abstract set of skill checks to solve any problem but rules how to handle common situations (and suggestions how to handle uncommon ones) but nothing more. The PCs and DM should decide when to use which rule and how the world reacts to what the PCs do.

These are the same two things that I am most interested in learning about in 4E, and that could "make or break" the game for me. However, I am on the opposite side of the spectrum from you, Derren. Rather than being anti-4E and thinking that these things could "fix" my opinion if they're done right, I am pro-4E and and thinking that they could ruin my opinion if they're done wrong. I guess we're just two sides of the same coin.

Personally, I like what I see of 4E so far. I think the changes they have shown us will make COMBAT and CHARACTER LEVELING more fun and engaging. However, I do have concerns, based on the per-encounter power system and other MMO/CCG-isms, that they have failed to create a world that makes sense from a story perspective or that retains the same feel for out-of-combat situations as prior editions.

BUT, I am choosing to remain cautiously optimistic that they did not screw things up. After all, we really haven't seen how rituals or skills work in action. I am assuming, for instance, that "rituals" function much like spells did in prior editions. If so, this would alleviate one of my big concerns about how the game feels when the characters are not in combat.

 

[Mallus]

One thing could change my mind about 4e: playtesting it for a few months.

 

[Deset Gled]

My main reservation about 4e was WotC's handling of errata. When 4e was announced, they hadn't released any in over a year, despite promises to have a big "errata push", and many known issues with products. Since then, they have done a great job of releasing errata for a number of products. The have continued to release errata as recently as this January, and have stated on their boards that they are planning at least one or two more releases before 4e. Now, I am still a little miffed about the stealth errata in the Rules Compendium (as noted in my sig), but following through on the rest of the 3.5 errata they have talked about this close to the 4e release should be a good enough show of faith to win me over.

The only mechanical change that I have issues with on 4e is the 1-1-1 diagonal counting. While I do consider that to be a pretty big issue, as long as it remains my only major complaint I can learn to live with it (or houserule it).