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

[Voss]

The cavalier, poorly designed? Surely you jest!

 

[sunbear]

Before 4th edition had come along My players and myself (being the person that had bought 99% of the books) had completely quit DnD (still play a little MnM and a little True 20). I had even canceled my subscription to the most excellent and perhaps the best D20 product line ever, Pathfinder. Then weeks after canceling 4E is announced. I tell myself that I'm not even going to look at it. Here I am a few short months later and I have already spent more money on (pre ordering) DnD books then I have in years. I'm not even sure what in 4E appeals to me. But it has worked. I'm ready to play again.

 

[Iceman75]

My group always allows all WotC products. Only 3rd party stuff is vetted. We've never had a problem. We just require that the player who plays something outside of the PHB, must provide a copy of the book containing said new class to the DM for review upon demand.

Can I come join your group
I never had an issue buying a couple of books just with the fact that I could never use them.

 

[Iceman75]

Further it seems to me that most of the classes will be limited to PHBI, PHBII, ...etc and with some of the classics not making PHBI it will be hard for the GM to say no. At least if they go to 4E I'm not sure how that they could say no.

Woot! Up to three posts!

 

[Cirex]

I was losing a bit of faith in D&D. Less time to play overall, I was not in mood to write anything...then I heard about ToB. I took a peak at the English version and loved every single page of it (well, mostly the idea). Bought the Spanish version when it was released and it kinda renewed my faith. An alternative to melee combat, considering how heavy-oriented my PCs are (they prefer swords over fireballs), was what I needed.

Then 4e was announced and I was reading how things were being developed and I saw how the ToB was some kind of "test" for 4e. Since I love ToB...I got to love the concept of 4e. I see the influence of MMORPGs, but hey, I welcome it with open arms.

I can't wait till October (or so) when the Spanish version is released. In 20 days I'm going to play Oakhurst adventure mixed with some other stuff with my friends and we will see how it goes. I'm translating many things, mostly rules and character sheets, so it's taking a bit of work, but I'm sure it will be worth it.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Further it seems to me that most of the classes will be limited to PHBI, PHBII, ...etc and with some of the classics not making PHBI it will be hard for the GM to say no. At least if they go to 4E I'm not sure how that they could say no.

Simple: As a DM, if I don't like a class or if it doesn't fit my campaign, I'll just tell the players they can't use it. I didn't allow monks in my 3.5 game. My campaign was based on medieval Europe, so monks simply did't exist. If I ever run 4e, I'll do the same thing.

 

[Dausuul]

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 have to say that I'm slightly amused by WotC's idea that it can define an endless series of splatbooks as "core." Of course, all that will actually result will be that people who play core-only will now refer to their play style as "original core only" (that is, the original PHB, DMG, and MM). As long as it's possible to play a complete game with just the basic three books--and it undoubtedly will be--then those will be the core books, and everything else is optional source material, no matter what WotC puts on the covers.

As far as core versus non-core, I can see the attractions of both, myself. I enjoy tinkering with the stuff in splatbooks, but I also enjoy the cleaner feel of a core-only game. I'm fine either way.

 

[Gundark]

It would frustrating to be playing in somebody's campaign and wanting to use materials from other books and being told no. Some DMs power trip on this. I can understand not wanting to rules bloat your game, however I think a DM should be flexible to allowing the people that are playing with him to have other options

 

[Campbell]

Simple: As a DM, if I don't like a class or if it doesn't fit my campaign, I'll just tell the players they can't use it. I didn't allow monks in my 3.5 game. My campaign was based on medieval Europe, so monks simply didn't exist. If I ever run 4e, I'll do the same thing.

This. Banning stuff is easy. I've been banning gnomes and halflings for awhile.

 

[Starbuck_II]

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



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.

Nah, Core was the worst tested. The 3.5 playtesters played the game for fun: they didn't check that much for wierd rules/conclusions of those rules. They barely optimized.

Now XPH was best tested of "Core" books (Complete Psionics calls it Core).
Tome of Magic was better balanced (and tested) than Core. Granted, only the Sjadow caster/Binder were worth while, the Truenamer sucked. But at least they weren't overpowered (like wizard, Druid, Cleric).