D&D 4E Why I'm so excited for 4E!!

[Iceman75]

It is sad that I have been a GM/DM for 15+ years and as I player I keep hearing DM that I play under say core books only and mean PHB/DMG. It has been 8 years and I have played or DMed for just about every possibility out of the PHB and I want something more. What the heck is the use of all of these other books and classes that WotC puts out if I'm not allowed to use them? So here come 4E to breathe new life into all of the standard classes and take them in different directions. I have great hopes for the new edition and feel that a lot of the things that people worry about are not something that bothered me in the 3E nor will they in 4E. I respect people that say that they are not going to change over but hope that they also realize that their are plenty of players out there like myself that feel that it is time for something new. Also I laugh at the idea that D&D is a money intensive hobby. It is one of the cheapest that I know of unless you are buying books like crazy that is. I have bought about 240 dollars in books over the last 8 years though I have gotten a few more as presents and that comes out to about 2.50 per month oveer that entire time. Seems a small price to pay for a great hobby that bring me and my friends together.

Anyone else feel that 4E will be their savior from the dirty word "core"?

I will say that I will miss several classes but the races should be interesting.
I love the new possibilities that will be there with the at-will/encounter/daily powers.

I might actually want to go back and play my spearmen idea again.

Well not bad for a first post after all this time of having my account/being an avid forum reader.

Have a good night all!

 

[Henry]

Welcome to the forums, and leaving lurker-hood, Iceman!

Anyone else feel that 4E will be their savior from the dirty word "core"?

I go the opposite way, myself -- I loved the idea of the "core" books being one complete set that you could use to delineate a baseline game that most people could work within, instead of meaning 90% of the body of all D&D. It's been my experience that the base system is usually the best-tested, and anything past that usually winds up being victim to subconscious power creep by the developers, in their quest to keep long-time gamers hooked.

I'm really glad that 4E does seem to be getting people jazzed about playing again; and hopefully, it will bring new table-toppers into the fold to spread the pool of possible players.

Have a good night all!

You too!

 

[Midnight Dawns]

I can't say I have seen "core" as the dirty word you have come to see it as, as I have seen the players who horrible abuse anything not in the core though i understand your feelings. As for 4th ed., the new possibilities excite me and I look forward to both dming and playing it.
Oh, and I also don't see it as a money intensive hobby. Among my group the buying is split between three of us and we just share. *shrug*
And a good nigh to you too.

 

[Khairn]

I go the opposite way, myself -- I loved the idea of the "core" books being one complete set that you could use to delineate a baseline game that most people could work within, instead of meaning 90% of the body of all D&D. It's been my experience that the base system is usually the best-tested, and anything past that usually winds up being victim to subconscious power creep by the developers, in their quest to keep long-time gamers hooked.
!

First off ... welcome to the boards Iceman!

I agree with you Henry. Particularly regarding the concern with power creep beyond the "core" books.

Assuming that power creep is an eventual given, and that multiple PHB's will now be required (in addition to the DDI) in order to play 4E with the same class and races as in 3E, I wouldn't be surprised to see many groups being challenged when it comes to managing which books / classes and races to allow in their games. Just an opinion.

 

[pogre]

I'm mostly a core only guy for 3.5. It was a decent set of rules that served it's purpose in my campaign well. I enjoy having a small set of rules that each campaign can organically add to. I like the original idea of prestige classes being campaign specific.

Finally, yeah I'm lazy in a sense, core is just a lot easier to run.

One of the few things that I am not excited about in 4e is the expansion of the "core." I may retain the old idea of sticking with the first three books only.

You must play a lot more than me (entirely possible), because there are tons of ideas and combos in the 3.5 core my players have not explored.

Pretty much a "ditto" of Henry

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I am sure that the core fanatics of 3.5 will be the core fanatics of 4E.

I understand in a limited way that viewpoint, but I tend to equate it with the 1E viewpoint that the rules are a necessary evil that often gets in the way of the pure roleplaying. I hope that is not too harsh, but I have never bought that argument. And saying core-only is a good way to lose me as a player.

Now you know how to get rid of me in the future

Bu I think core-only is here to stay, and even with the above said, even if I could have more than core at the beginning, I would start learning the game with core. Too much extra stuff really complicates the game, and even with my anti-core stance, I can admit core only is better balanced, though it still has some catastriphic oversights *Natural spell*

 

[Flynn]

Good Morning, All:

I don't think I'll be following the WOTC definition of Core. I imagine that I'll only allow the WOTC books that have been opened to the OGL/GSL/whatever license, because then there's opportunities to get third-party support (and maybe a chance for me to write a few things on the side). If WOTC doesn't think something should be open, it probably shouldn't be in my game. (The only exception to this would be limiting my games to the three initial core books only, should 4E suddenly go closed for some reason.)

I've deliberately made a choice to allow WOTC to define how much money they want me to spend on their products, based solely on their own investment in the Open Gaming concept. I figure that I can play with just the PHB1, and run with the DMG1 and the MM1 (plus my own conversions), so I don't NEED the rest of the books. Since I want to support the Open Gaming concept, I've decided to save myself a few bucks and only buy the books that contain open content, whatever its designation will be.

That being said, I do know a good number of people who are excited about 4E simply because they look forward to getting in on the new edition at the ground floor, since they couldn't afford to keep up with v3.5 or 3E. That makes perfect sense to me, and I look forward to watching them grow with 4E over the next few years.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[OchreJelly]

As a DM, the only thing that bothered me in the past was cross-referencing. If a "non-core" class had a spell list where half the spells where in book A, and the rest in book B I was less inclined to use that class as an NPC. That's just one example of cross-referencing and I'm sure other DM's can think of others.

Of course the flip-side to that is PC's and NPC's don't share the same build rules, to which I'm grateful. I feel 4E is making strides to addressing these issues. For the record, I feel that cross-referencing isn't as big a problem from the players side as I do the DM's side.

They will introduce new classes in "non-core" books, but it's my impression that they are self-contained. As new classes are introduced, new monster supplements will incorporate those classes as NPC listings. I would actually buy a monster manual style book that is nothing but "classed" NPC's across all tiers - a Rogue's Gallery!

 

[an_idol_mind]

I prefer core only in my games for two reasons. One, it means I only have to haul three books and my notebook to the game. Two, it keeps the rules pretty simple, while at the same time allowing for a surprising range of options. I'd much prefer to see WotC go the route of fewer rules and more modules or settings, although I udnerstand why that isn't feasible money-wise.

One thing that I do think is interesting is that the first couple years of expansions to the core seem to be pretty well planned out by WotC. Psionics, for example, is being put into its own niche instead of something that is frequently dwarfed by magic. The down side is that certain things that have come to define D&D will be left out of the first three books. The up side is that at least the early splat books will probably involve less power creep and will have clearly defined niches that don't overlap with the core books. That should make the rules expansions more valuable and interesting to many people who usually toss out non-core stuff as being redundant/unbalanced/etc..

 

[Lizard]

Not a single PC in either the game I'm in or the game I'm running could be built 100% with the PHB. It will be a long time before 4e 'catches up' to 3e in depth and options, longer still because of the seeming lack of an open license.

I figure my current game will last about a year and a half more. By that time, there might be enough 4e support -- and enough time for all the glaring bugs to have been found -- to merit thinking about switching.