What do you think so far?

[sjmiller]

In order to make everyone "feel good" about playing, everyone gets a trophy, not just the winner of the league.

Bad analogy. D&D isn't meant to be competitive. In regards to different classes, it can't work that way unless the DM is playing favourites.

You may have missed the line right before it which read:

In many ways it reminds me of youth athletics.

I am not claiming it is exactly like youth athletics. I am not even saying you should compare them. I am just saying that to me the new edition reminds me of what is done in youth athletics.

 

[Shade]

What do I think so far?

I think from a player's perspective it sounds like fun. Class features at every level, always having something to do, wizards not being limited to Vancian magic...this all sounds fun.

As a DM, it sounds awful. Less flexible monsters, using the less-flavorable villain classes than templates, major disruptions to ongoing campaigns, wholesale changes to monsters that have been around forever in my campaigns, yet another different setting to have to root out of the core products to fit things back into the status quo, the list goes on...

 

[Mouseferatu]

sing the less-flavorable villain classes than templates

Templates still exist in 4E.

 

[Shade]

Templates still exist in 4E.

The term does. But the "no mechanical changes" makes me think they aren't templates even remotely in the 3e sense.

 

[hong]

It should be mentioned that WotC hasn't said anything about villain classes. They're just a Mearls invention from Iron Heroes. I happened to like them and made a few for D&D, and various people have assumed/guessed that there'll be something similar in 4E.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The term does. But the "no mechanical changes" makes me think they aren't templates even remotely in the 3e sense.

That might be true, if they said there would be "no mechanical changes." That's not what was said.

Specifically, to quote Chris Sims:

Template theory, however, is that the template changes few to no numeric values in a monster (including level), instead changing it to fit the intended template shtick.

"Few to no." (Not just "no.")

"Numeric value." (Not "no mechanical changes," but not many changes to stats and abilities.)

That still leaves infinite room for changes to spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, maneuvers, spells, resistances, immunities, attack forms, and everything that's not specifically a numeric value.

Seems to me that these are still basically templates more or less as we know them.

(And BTW, it's also been said in one of the designer blogs that you can still add class levels to monsters, even though it may not work 100% like it does in 3E.)

 

[Shade]

That might be true, if they said there would be "no mechanical changes." That's not what was said.

"Few to no." (Not just "no.")

"Numeric value." (Not "no mechanical changes," but not many changes to stats and abilities.)

That still leaves infinite room for changes to spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, maneuvers, spells, resistances, immunities, attack forms, and everything that's not specifically a numeric value.

Seems to me that these are still basically templates more or less as we know them.

I suppose it could go that way. I'm still not convinced, as save DCs, boosts to resistances, and whatnot could be considered numeric. I'll concede that this requires more of "wait and see" approach, though. :\

(And BTW, it's also been said in one of the designer blogs that you can still add class levels to monsters, even though it may not work 100% like it does in 3E.)

Which was usually less effective and less fun (IMHO) than improving by Hit Dice or template.

 

[morbiczer]

I couldn't choose any option: "awful" is too strong, "not really impressed" would have been better.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

If I really didn't like Vancian magic and the strategic and dramatic potential of limited spells per day, I wouldn't have played a spellcaster in the D&D system. I'd have gone to another system.

If I really didn't like alignment having mechanical effects, I wouldn't have played D&D. I'd have gone to another system.

If I felt that I needed to be able to make a significant contribution in every round of combat or every roleplaying situation, I wouldn't have played D&D (which allows for specialists as well as generalists). I'd have gone to another system.

If I thought that "dead levels" were a bad thing, I wouldn't have played D&D (and certainly I wouldn't have played Basic/Expert), I'd have gone to another system.

Given that I've stuck with the D&D system in preference to all others for 20+ years, why would want such a dramatic change to the feel of the game? YES, "other systems" went away from Vancian casting. I CHOSE to play D&D and not those "other systems."

I like the changes to skills and the apparent removal of iterative attacks. A pair of 3E innovations that slow down prep time and game time and could have been done better. And I like the idead of rolling spell DCs rather than saves in some cases (such as with hordes of mooks), though that option was in 3E. I liked 3E's solution for players who don't want to run out of spells -- the warlock class -- but I was really looking forward to playing a low-level wizard in an upcoming campaign. Now I'm not. A wizard with unlimited magic is just not as appealing as one who starts off really weak and has to be strategic and judicious.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Which was usually less effective and less fun (IMHO) than improving by Hit Dice or template.

Do we know that you can't advance monsters by HD in 4E? (Honest question, not being rhetorical.) I thought I saw something that implied you still could--again, not exactly as it was done in 3E, but similar--but I'm not finding it now. I'm also not finding anything to say that you can't, though.