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

[Korgoth]

"Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil". If the PHB contains that stuff, I don't even want to open it.

The five people who want change for change's sake post here on EN World. But that doesn't mean it will fly in general. I'm about to the point where I want the whole thing to crater, and the brand to be cancelled.

Which is funny, because I was looking forward to it when it was first announced. Until I realized that they were just using D&D as a toilet of experimental design concepts. Sure, you can look down into the toilet and call what is floating there "D&D", but that doesn't make it other than what it is.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

"Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil". If the PHB contains that stuff, I don't even want to open it.

The five people who want change for change's sake post here on EN World. But that doesn't mean it will fly in general. I'm about to the point where I want the whole thing to crater, and the brand to be cancelled.

Which is funny, because I was looking forward to it when it was first announced. Until I realized that they were just using D&D as a toilet of experimental design concepts. Sure, you can look down into the toilet and call what is floating there "D&D", but that doesn't make it other than what it is.

So your top concern is that it will be a success?

 

[Masquerade]

My top concern is that the art won't appeal to me.

My top question is, given that we have been hearing a lot about "monsters," what will combat against classed NPCs be like, and, for that matter, how will non-monster NPCs in general operate in the new system?

The five people who want change for change's sake post here on EN World.

I'll be the first to confess. Now, who are my four accomplices?

(Seriously, though, I want to see plenty of new things in the new edition. Call it "changes for change's sake" if you like, but next summer, I won't want to play 3.X with an improved ruleset, I'll want to play 4e!)

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'll be the first to confess. Now, who are my four accomplices?

*raises hand*

Don't get me wrong, it can be taken too far. But the simple truth is, the axiom "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" leads to stagnation if followed too slavishly. If the designers have a good idea--and so far, I've found the majority of what I know of 4E to qualify--I don't want to see those good ideas rejected just because "That's not the way it's been done."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think Monte Cook was correct in that article about 3.5. The time for radical changes is in a new edition. Go conservative in those years in between. (3.5 went too far for a revision, not far enough for a new edition.)

It's kind of like the difference between writing a whole bunch of new house rules for a new campaign, versus doing the same halfway through the campaign.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Will the ability scores be grouped in their proper order:
STR,
INT,
WIS,
DEX,
CON,
CHA?

You *are* old school, aren't ya bro? I too fondly remember this traditional order of attributes. Ah, to be age 10 in 1981 again . . .

 

[Thaumaturge]

"Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil". If the PHB contains that stuff, I don't even want to open it.

My main concern is that in the lead up to 4e all of the anti-4e rhetoric and hyperbole will make my head explode. (Yes, that too was hyperbole).

Thaumaturge.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Now, who are my four accomplices?

(Seriously, though, I want to see plenty of new things in the new edition. Call it "changes for change's sake" if you like, but next summer, I won't want to play 3.X with an improved ruleset, I'll want to play 4e!)

I'll confess. I certainly like the sound of the Wizard schools, and feel they'll be reasonably appropriate (probably rename them a little, but that's because Wyverns are wierd and Emerald Frost inexplicably annoys me).

However, my main concern about 4E, at this point, is that they will go overboard with this, and go all SCHOOLS FOR EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING! Of course, they won't be schools, per se, but "Tribes" and "Breeds" for monsters (which will probably be fine), "Styles" for Fighters (which will irk me greatly - I liked it when it was weapon-based), "Guilds" for Rogues, etc. etc. and in the end they'll seriously gum up the machinery of D&D with all this overspecificity, and we'll have to spend hours or days or weeks unravelling it and writing up "house documents" and confusing the fizzuck out of innocent players and so on to get it straight.

Seriously, just keep it under control guys.

My second-biggest concern, which could become my biggest, is that they'll mangle Psionics into an unrecognizable pulp in some fashion.

 

[drothgery]

My major concern with 4e is a purely 'flavor' one, and that's acceptance of the creeping dark/evil = cool mentality. Hence we get non-LG paladins, PH1 tieflings, and the 'points of light' default setting. I'm hoping we're also getting non-chaotic/evil warlocks, and PH1 aasimars or eladrins, and no PH1 half-orcs to help offset this a little bit...

 

[Mouseferatu]

My major concern with 4e is a purely 'flavor' one, and that's acceptance of the creeping dark/evil = cool mentality. Hence we get non-LG paladins, PH1 tieflings, and the 'points of light' default setting. I'm hoping we're also getting non-chaotic/evil warlocks, and PH1 aasimars or eladrins, and no PH1 half-orcs to help offset this a little bit...

My understanding is that the whole reason you can have non-LG paladins now is that alignment has little to no mechanical impact in 4E. If I'm right in my understanding, then by that same logic there should be nothing preventing you from playing a LG warlock.