What is your top question/concern about 4th edition?

[Pygon]

I guess my question is more about conversion:

Will 4e allow me to make characters that at least function similarly (signature abilities) to all the exist 3e classes (not prestige)?

Particularly the off classes: barbarian, ranger, paladin, druid, sorceror, bard.

 

[Miar]

Will the yearly player's handbooks etc be in the SRD? This will have a big influence on how 3rd party stuff develops and in what ways 4E expands.

 

[Imaro]

My biggest question is...where's the streamlining? All I've seen so far is "deh kewl awesome" that is soo much MORE (abiliies, power, racial traits, etc.) than 3.5. Give me at least one firm example of streamlining or faster play. Telling me "combat will be the same speed but you can use more opponents" isn't the same as telling me combat has been streamlined for all around quicker play.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

I still want the game to be recognizable as the same one I've been playing for (gulp) more than 25 years.

Being brutally honest, D&D 3e is a wonderful ruleset, but if you compare it with 1e or 2e, it's hardly the same system anymore. Specifically, the revamping of the die-rolling methodology (advent of DCs) and the removal of race/attribute/class restrictions really changed the tone of D&D IMHO. If I'd been in a coma through 2000 and 2001, I wouldn't see it as the same game at all.

That being said, in time most of us will come to realise the differences aren't so major that we cannot play it. I have a couple of beefs with 4e, which are mostly the same beefs I have with 3e: loosening of alignment restrictions for Rangers and Paladins, and a few other fiddly details. I know I'm the minuscule minority, too, so I won't talk about that here. Instead, I'll say that I'll step into that brave new world and play the same Planescape, Birthright and Dark Sun campaigns I've always enjoyed. And that's how it stays recognisable for me...

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I guess the number one thing I'm curious about it how they are messing with the magic system; I'm intensely curious about what will be done to start the final tear-down of the Vancian system. I don't want them to stop half-way.

From every thing we've read they aren't going to be using spell points or mana points or something similar.
They won't be using a system where magic causes 'drain', that is damage from fatigue like in Shadowrun.

Everything they've told us leads me to believe they'll just be increasing the refresh rate of some abilities from X slots a day/day to 'per encounter' which is once every couple of minutes.
Vancian is staying.

 

[JamesM]

Being brutally honest, D&D 3e is a wonderful ruleset, but if you compare it with 1e or 2e, it's hardly the same system anymore. Specifically, the revamping of the die-rolling methodology (advent of DCs) and the removal of race/attribute/class restrictions really changed the tone of D&D IMHO. If I'd been in a coma through 2000 and 2001, I wouldn't see it as the same game at all.

I can certainly see how someone might say that and say it with plausibility. I don't agree, of course, but that's because I see most 3E rules "innovations" as primarily extensions and regularizing of design principles already laid down in 1E and (especially) 2E. What had previously been special cases (if you belong to this elven sub-race, you can have unlimited advancement as a magic-user, etc.) were now made the norm.

Perhaps this is a bit abstract, but, to me anyway, while 3E does not, as you rightly say, have the same system as previous editions, it still feels like the same game. It still has (most of) the same sensibilities and flavor. So far, 4E feels like not just a different system but also a different game, at least to me. That may be a trick of the peaks we've been given so far, which probably emphasize change more than continuity to generate buzz and justify a new edition, but I think it's more than that.

We shall see, I guess. Truth be told, I'm not anxious one way or the other. If 4E still feels like D&D to me and represents a genuine improvement rules-wise over v.3.5, I'll buy it happily. If it doesn't, no harm, no foul. I'd love to see a better D&D that still harkens back to the earlier editions while building upon their foundation; I'm simply skeptical that 4E is such a game.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Being brutally honest, D&D 3e is a wonderful ruleset, but if you compare it with 1e or 2e, it's hardly the same system anymore. Specifically, the revamping of the die-rolling methodology (advent of DCs) and the removal of race/attribute/class restrictions really changed the tone of D&D IMHO. If I'd been in a coma through 2000 and 2001, I wouldn't see it as the same game at all.

The system did change drastically, although one can see pretty clear connections to later 2nd edition stuff and what was done with 3rd edition. One thing about 3rd edition, though, is that my style of game didn't change drastically. Just about anything that could be done in 2nd edition could be duplicated in 3rd edition, which was pretty key to me. More options allowed for more possibilities, but what was doable in older editions was still workable in the newer one, with very few exceptions. The terminology also had some consistency; a lawful neutral dwarf cleric who has a mace of smiting looked pretty much the same in 2nd edition as 3rd edition.

My big worry for 4th edition is that the changes will make it too much of a headache for me to convert my old campaign. Already, the design and development articles suggest that elves and wizards are going to change pretty drastically, which could mean some pretty big changes to my game. We've also got one of the designers hinting in his blog that some of the basic stuff, like a chaotic alignment, is going to be changed. So now my chaotic good elf wizard is starting to look totally changed. If you've got a gnome illusionist, heaven help you.

Many people have a stopping point where they consider the game to have changed too drastically to be considered D&D. Some people got off after the brown box, some hopped off at AD&D. Others bailed with the basic/expert sets, and so on. My big concern for 4th edition is that the drastic changes will mean that my stopping point is 3.5.

 

[delericho]

Being brutally honest, D&D 3e is a wonderful ruleset, but if you compare it with 1e or 2e, it's hardly the same system anymore.

It's not the same system, but to me it feels like the same game. I should note that 90% of my play has been "core rules only", which probably has a big impact. However, for me, a lot of what makes D&D into D&D (and not just "OGL Fantasy 1") is encapsulated into those sacred cows that some people seem so keen to slaughter: AC, HP, Vancian magic, LG-only Paladins, nine levels of (arcane) spells...

When 4e was announced and it became apparent that the designers were taking the game apart, seeing how it worked, and putting it all back together, I was all for that. There are some significant flaws in 3.X, and fixing some of them requires more than just a patch be applied.

However, when they started talking about "LE Paladins of Asmodeus", "twenty-fifth level spells", and so forth something started to feel... out of place. I can't really be more specific than that.

I'm going to wait and reserve judgement until 4e hits the streets. It may very well be the best D&D ever, as they promise. It may be that all these changes totally rock. But it may also be that the game that is produced is a truly excellent game... just not what I would call D&D.

 

[Wanderer20]

Read my sig

 

[JamesM]

Both an_idol_mind and delricho nicely sum up my feelings better than I'd done in my previous posts. Not much more to add than to say that I largely agree with how both of them phrased their concerns about 4E.