What do you think so far?

[Vigilance]

I'm amped. I think it's going to be great.

 

[Merlion]

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.

I really have no idea how so many people are leaping to the conclusion that wizards will have unlimited magic...in a way like having unlimited SPELLS would mean now...and I have even less idea how they've come to the conclusion that wizards will no longer need to be strategic and judicious.

I'm not sure where "make classes more flexible" morphed into "take away class identity". Just because you don't need a party medic doesn't mean clerics are obsolete. It means that clerics are now free to do stuff _other_ than be the party medic. Similarly, just because you no longer need a dedicated bomb-disposal guy doesn't mean rogues are obsolete. It means that rogues are now free to do stuff other than disarm traps. Each class is always going to be better at certain things than the other classes. The point is not to widen the gap to the point that each class can only do stuff in its niche. This _increases_ flexibility rather than removing it, since now there's less need for the DM to tailor adventures to their specific group. Want to run a game with lots of undead, but there's no cleric? Well, maybe now you can. Or you want to run a game with lots of traps and puzzles, but there's no rogue? Again, maybe now you can. By making the classes broader in what they can do, there's more room for the DM to run whatever they want, instead of having to worry about whether it'll be a cakewalk or a TPK.

Exactly. ~claps for hong~

I hadn't really thought about it before, but your right that it will also make people less fixated on having a "balanced" party...people will feel more free to play what they want to play rather than patching holes.

 

[KingCrab]

Looks to me that they have a lot of playtesting to do and very little time. I doubt they will be able to release anything worthwhile when they still have so many decisions to make and so much testing and balancing to do.

 

[Arnwyn]

I voted "awful", but that's a bit harsh for my current opinion - "not impressed" is a lot closer. There are a bunch of fairly interesting sounding things coming down the pipe for 4e, but a significant amount already has me dismissing it as being clearly not for my group and I.

My players, though, would vote "awful" and mean it - when I gave them the list of things that we would likely consider a positive change, they simply rolled their eyes.

 

[Pygon]

Need more input.

Of course, we won't get a real taste until we fork out $20 for the Races and Classes preview in December.

But I'll burn in the infernal region before I plunk down $40 for SWSE just to have a good look at what 4e might be.

 

[Shade]

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.

I honestly can't say either.

I can say, with absolute certainty, that in a recent podcast, both Dave Noonan and Mike Mearls made it clear that they'd like to get rid of Hit Dice advancement as a way of improving monsters.

 

[The_Gneech]

4E itself: For every thing I hear that makes me say, "Hmm, that sounds good..." I hear another that makes me cringe. So it's a wash.

The Digitial Initiative: Everything about the DI irritates me at best, and infuriates me at worst. And the DI and 4E are joined at the base of the spinal cord.

Thus, my overall impression is negative. On the other hand, I really like SWSE, so I'm going to go with "need more data" in the hopes that more positives will show up, sans negatives.

-The Gneech

 

[Winterthorn]

I'm a "Need more data" voter too.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Do we know that you can't advance monsters by HD in 4E? (Honest question, not being rhetorical.)

I don't think we do know. I've been keeping a "sacred cow graveyard" file on my PC, and so far there are very few confirmed headstones.

Not that, on further consideration, advancing monsters by HD would be a sacred cow in my book. But I still don't think we've heard anything.