D&D 4E Why I'm "Meh" About 4E

[maggot]

Wha? I thought that the point of marketing was to convince as many people as possible that they will like your product regardless of whether or not they actually will so that they'll give you their money. :\

You're not in marketing are you.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Probably not.
Here's the thing about playtester reports. For them to be meaningful, they have to be done by someone the intended recipients know, trust and they should ideally looking for the same kind of things in the game. Anonymous voices on the internet don't really supply that. The only thing they do is reinforce the opinions of people who are already sold on 4e and who know the people supplying the reports.

Failing that, they need to supply a fair amount of mechanical detail. Which, yeah, they can't give at this time. So, honestly its something that should have waited until they can actually give a review, rather than vague reassurances to a wide audience. An audience, it should be pointed out, which is large enough that it can't possibly want all of the same things out of the game.

I agree with this. It will be a lot better to form an opinion when you can get things like "I like this mechanic, and this is why." or "I don't like this mechanic, and this is why." Then you'll have something to agree or disagree with, and your opinions about the game can sway (or stay the same). Until that day comes...

 

[RigaMortus2]

Are there any classes other than warlock that worry you? Warlord is the only other newbie, and it really seems easy to work into any campaign setting. And while I'll admit to not knowing the specifics of Greyhawk very well, the 4e warlock seems flexible enough that you could fit it in as a PC class if you had to. (Fey-pact and maybe shadow-pact warlocks seem viable to me, anyway.)

If people have come to accept the 3E Sorcerer, then I don't see a problem with accepting the 4E Warlock. There was no Sorcerer class pre-3E, but at least we have a taste of what a Warlock is like from 3E...

 

[Imban]

The same thing should be easy enough for people who don't like dragonborn or teiflings.

Nope. My problem with the Tieflings is one that can't really be fixed by anything less than their complete and total eradication from 4e. It's that, well, I think their official art direction is utterly terrible for a main PC race, because I don't really like bright red skin, giant horns, and devil tails, nor am I a fan of absurdly jagged scribble-weapons without grips being a new and regularly-appearing standard in Dungeons & Dragons. And I mean, this is kinda weird, since I like the flowery Elven weapons and the geometric Dwarven weapons, and I even like ridiculous oversized anime weapons sometimes. Unwieldable scribbleblades just push all the wrong buttons for me.

On the other hand, maybe the inclusion of Dragonborn and Tieflings into the core rules means there won't be quite as much trouble for people who enjoy playing characters of humanoid "monster" races. It can be awful hard to justify discrimination against Hobgoblins or Drow (outside of places that are actively at war with them) at the same time as you have lizardmen and red-skinned devilmen as socially acceptable companions.

If people have come to accept the 3E Sorcerer, then I don't see a problem with accepting the 4E Warlock. There was no Sorcerer class pre-3E, but at least we have a taste of what a Warlock is like from 3E...

I imagine the 4e Warlock will actually be pretty darn widely accepted among 4e players once people actually see it. It won't be appropriate for every campaign and campaign world being carried over from previous editions, though, much like the Sorcerer wasn't appropriate for every 2e campaign setting - Dark Sun being the flagship there.

 

[Nine Hands]

First point is that "eladrin" are just high elves renamed. Forget everything you knew about those OLD eladrin. (Stupid name choice on WOTC's part IMO, but there you have it.)

But beyond that, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It doesn't sound like you're really heartbroken to lose gnomes and half-orcs, and even if you were, they'll be making a return soon enough. The real issue seems to be that you want to prevent your players from playing races they like, because those races don't fit the campaign you have in mind... so you're instead going to force them to keep playing a version you consider mechanically inferior, just because you think that'll make it easier to say "no"?

Seems like this is more of a management issue for you. If you really want to be Mr. Hardcore DM, grow a pair and just tell your players they can't play tieflings or dragonborn. I've played 3e games where no divine magic existed or where there were no arcane spells above level 5, just because the DM said so. I had no problem with either case, because the DMs were good enough to make it worth the restrictions.

On the other hand, if your goal is to make the game as fun as possible for players... why not let them play the new races? Just because you have one tiefling PC doesn't mean you have to stick Bael Turath into your campaign world. He can be a Drizzt-style Only Good Tiefling In the Word if that works better for you.

I really respect a GM who has a vision of his game world, if he says that there are no Dragonborn then there are no Dragonborn. The easiest way to do this is to just write up a one page set of character creation rules and hand it to the players, if they complain about it, then maybe they aren't mature enough to game with you.

Someone giving you a hard time over a flavor choice like that is most likely going to be a problem at the gaming table too. This is a good way to filter out the annoying players. Let them bother another GM

 

[AFGNCAAP]

FWIW:

I like what I've heard so far with some of the changes for 4E. And, from what it sounds like, a fair amount of the stuff from 3.X ed. that isn't in the original 4E PHB may show up later in online articles or future products.

(Though, with that being said, [hyperbole]I'm not keen on having to wait for official gnome PC stats or a bard or barbarian class until PHB 18 is released[/hyperbole].)

I'm also not keen on losing gnomes and half-orcs for tieflings and dragonborn. I understand that their may be player demand for those races. However, I think in this case, as in the case with any of the "monstrous" races that were available for use as PCs, I'll place a limit on the number of said creatures in a party (usually only 1 PC out of the group may play one, or with really large groups, 1 of every 5-6 players, rounded down).

As it is, I know that I'll need to reboot & retcon my homebrew setting for 4E. The antagonism between paladins & warlocks (built mainly off of the AL restrictions of the 3.5 classes) will go out the window. Major NPCs will need a redesign or have to wait until future supplements because their races (PC stats) &/or classes haven't been updated yet (like changelings, gnomes, half-orcs, githzerai, warforged, barbarians, bards, monks, druids, sorcerers, soulknives, etc.). A major benefactor of the NPCs (and a beloved NPC of mine) will have to wait because the 4E MM won't have bronze dragon stats (apparently).

However, I can live with all of this. The retcon/reboot: I can deal with. I just look at it like it occurs in comics—a major event causes the reality shift to occur somehow (ala House of M or Infinite Crisis). The new PC races can be available, but rare & limited. The new/redefined classes won't be a problem. To be honest, the best way I think I can handle the changes in 4e is to preview them, establish limits that I feel are appropriate to the setting, and narrow the focus of what the campaign world is like (rather than having a lot defined at the outset). As more material comes along, I'll integrate it as I see fit. IMO, I think it's a bit easier to do this with a homebrew because it lacks the level of prior knowledge/expectation that players may have with established, detailed canon settings (like most/all of the existing D&D settings).

I'm cautiously optimistic about the new edition. To be honest, if Star Wars: Saga Edition provides any hints, then I'll be glad to not worry about allocating skill points each level (esp. for multiclass characters), worrying if a certain race is allowable due to monster hit dice or level adjustments, recalling the crit ranges & multipliers for various weapons, or worrying about my PC or NPC spellcasters' batteries running completely dry.

As it is, there isn't any canon D&D setting I prefer to use, because there's always some element to it that I just don't care for. And, to be honest, I find it easier to just use a homebrew setting instead of having to debate over "why it isn't like that in my FR/Greyhawk/Eberron/Dragonlance campaign" with players/fans that like/love/worship the status quo of the setting.

But, I'll have to wait & see before I make a final judgment (and Keep on the Shadowfell will be my first purchase, esp. for a decent preview of the mechanics). However, I think I'll make the switch as soon as it's affordable.

 

[Dire Lemming]

You're not in marketing are you.

Absolutely not. I have a strong aversion to lying to people, especially if it's to their detriment.

Bear in mind though that my most notable experience with Marketing is with Oblivion. So maybe Pete Hines gave me the wrong impression of a marketer's job.

If that's the case then I guess I've got nothing to add on that subject.

 

[Tewligan]

Honest question - Does the fact that playtester reports say that they feel it is a better version of D&D have any impact on those folks who say the game doesn't look like D&D to them?

Not for me. Whether they're saying they like it or not, I'm seeing from the preview books and the info being dribbled onto the internet that it doesn't have the same "feel" that I like from D&D. Not saying it's bad, just saying that the playtesters who are allowed to release their opinions and I may well have very different tastes.

 

[SSquirrel]

I wouldn't say I'm bored with generic fantasy, I usually play human characters anyway*SNIP*

Oh man I am Part of the reason I loved Arcana Unearthed/Evolved as much as I did is that the only thing in common w/the normal PHB from races and classes was the Human race. Everything else was new. Anything to mix up the old "Well,. new campaign time..looks like George has his elf rogue, gnome druid w/Bill and Bob is Half Orc Wizard w/a 12 Int...AGAIN!". I like new things, I like making people change up their norms and try something new and different for them.

I personally wouldn't have an issue if I were your player and you told me that there were no elves in your campaign unless I'd already made a character that was an elf and now had to make a new character.

Me either. I've played in games before and been told no elves or dwarves. I looked thru the rest and started on something I felt was fun. Key reason to always check what races and classes your DM allows first before ya waste time on a character you cant' play and/or get attached to the idea.