D&D 4E What don't you like about 4E so far? (Not a rant)

[Gwathlas]

There's already a thread talking about the points of 4E that people are especially excited about, so here's the inverse. What tidbits about 4E have you heard that made you frown? Is there a design choice that you don't think will work as well? Something you enjoy not making it into the Core Rulebooks (the first three, anyway)? Is your favorite setting being ignored, or altered in a way you don't like?

Discuss here, but please, let's not turn this into a rant-thread.

For me, I dislike the loss of the Great Wheel planar structure; there's a lot of history and familiarity there that I'll miss. I'm also worried about the rumor (I hope it's still just a rumor) that characters only get one attack per round. And of course, I don't like the idea that some popular monsters are deliberately being withheld from the first Monster Manual to make later ones more popular.

What, so far, don't you like?

The whold combat system and the magic item system. There was no need to change the economic system but thats not a big deal. The combat system is the worst aspect and for that alone I will not buy the new game. The one attack restriction is a deal killer and the book of nine swords/starwars powers for fighters is not D&D in any way.

What they are doing to the Realms finalized my choice not buy any more wotc/hasbro products and if they went out of business that would be just fine.

 

[DaveMage]

1) Spreading the core across different books so WotC can re-brand supplements as core. So much for the "I'll get the core books and then see" plan. Of all these, I consider this one the most likely to come back and bite them. I'm a "supplement a month" guy, so it wouldn't make that much difference to me. But I think part of the large installed player base of D&D arises from the fact you can plug into so much with just the 3 core books. I think many of the more casual players aren't going to bite.
2) Replacing the great wheel with another overly specific cosmology. (I would have no problem replacing the great wheel with a generic baseline for a cosmology, but the cosmology presented is too specific for core books, and belongs in a setting.)
3) I'm dubious about the per-encounter craze, but it may turn out alright. It doesn't sound like the designers are banking on it to the extent some were thinking they were.
4) Re-imagining monsters. Succubi are demons, have been since 1e.
5) I would say "save or die", but I wonder if that's just a marketing thing and it's just a consequence of having no saves. Of course if you think save or die is a pisser, the DM rolling some dice and saying "your dead" sounds like even more of a pisser. Guess I'll wait and see on this one.
6) Re-imagining monsters.
7) Coring the Warlock.
8) Concerned about skill system, too, but definitely need more detail here. I'm glad, at least, that the authors have said it won't be a clone of SWSE's skill system.
9) Coring of tiefling.
10) Re-imagining eladrin to be the supposedly non-subrace elf. A rose is a rose, no need to slaughter a functional creature to pretend it's a petunia.
11) (Edit: Thanks Wayne) Monsters using different rules than PCs. This aspect is what sold me on 3e. Sure, it needed fixed. The designers apparently gave up.

And add these to my list as well.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It is possible that this particular dislike is totally unfounded and that there is truly a place for great role-playing of enriched characters in 4E. If so, Why are they not talking about it....since D&D is a ROLE-playing game?

You don't need rules for that.

One will be the head of the scouts, perfectly represented as having a few levels of Scout and Rogue.

Orc ranger. Seeing as the ranger killed the scout and took his stuff.

One will be the head of a group that fits with my "Alliance with clerics of Hextor" storyline: a Marshall/Blackguard who seeks to overthrow the current orc leader.

Orc warlord/evil paladin. You can still give monsters class levels in 4e.

 

[Baby Samurai]

is not D&D in any way.

And what exactly is "your opinion" of what that might be?

 

[JamesM]

My 2 main concerns:

1. No more low level play.
2. Fighters and Rogues becoming "spellcasters"

I like low level play. I like having the option to not play a spellcaster.

These are close to my biggest concerns as well. From what we have seen so far, it really does look like 4E is predicated on the notion that no one enjoys playing an incompetent boob from the sticks who leaves his farming community behind and sets out for Adventure. For me, that pretty much defines the D&D experience. I have nothing against higher level characters being competent, even supremely so, but, for me, it's vital that low to mid-level characters regularly be out-gunned, over their heads, and generally without any real ability to make things go their way. D&D may be fantasy, but it's always had an implied gritty edge to it at the low levels that makes the power gained at higher levels all the more meaningful. Beginning 4E characters look like they begin life as heroes rather than build up to it and that's a HUGE turn off for me.

 

[mhensley]

There are a few things that have me concerned so far-

tieflings and eladrin as core races
faster advancement
1st level pc's being much tougher than before

 

[Cbas_10]

Cbas_10: It is possible that this particular dislike is totally unfounded and that there is truly a place for great role-playing of enriched characters in 4E. If so, Why are they not talking about it....since D&D is a ROLE-playing game?

Doug: You don't need rules for that.

You know...that is a good point. In addition, the 3E/current books really don't discuss or reflect any role-playing outside of the rules of combat. Take this one off my list, as it is up to each troupe of DM & players to bring the role-playing to the game.

Cbas10: One will be the head of the scouts, perfectly represented as having a few levels of Scout and Rogue.

Doug: Orc ranger. Seeing as the ranger killed the scout and took his stuff.

Well, I wasn't specifically talking about exact classes. Plus, regarding your next response.....

Cbas10: One will be the head of a group that fits with my "Alliance with clerics of Hextor" storyline: a Marshall/Blackguard who seeks to overthrow the current orc leader.

Doug: Orc warlord/evil paladin. You can still give monsters class levels in 4e.

I admit that I have not read through every blog, preview, and developer discussion. The ability to write up monstrous antagonists in 4E just as we can in 3E appeared to have been nixed, based on things I have read so far. If I had read wrong and we CAN make our monsters with classes in 4E, this will ease a LOT of my hesitations. This is why I'm posting and reading here...I'm not dead-set in my opinions, just in case I am wrong or there is more to learn (well, there is certainly more to learn about 4E).

 

[Doug McCrae]

The ability to write up monstrous antagonists in 4E just as we can in 3E appeared to have been nixed, based on things I have read so far.

The change seems to be that monsters, pure monsters anyway, will be built according to different rules than PCs. They won't have one feat for every 3 HD plus one, or max ranks in a skill of HD + 3 for instance. In fact monsters won't have hit dice at all.

However I definitely remember reading a designer commenting that they would keep the ability to add class levels to monsters because of its popularity, though I don't have a link to the quote I'm afraid. After all it doesn't really matter what rules are used to construct the base monster, one can always add the abilities of a 6th level rogue, or whatever on top. +4 BAB, +2/+5/+2 to saves, etc.

I also seem to remember something about cut down rules to use some races as PCs, such as orcs, goblins and gnomes, being in the Monster Manual, though I'm not certain about that.

 

[Aloïsius]

1) Druid not in the PHB ?
2) Warlords
3) No "save or die" spells ? No "save or suck" spells ?

 

[F4NBOY]

auto crit on a 20, not confirmed though.