Aeolius
Adventurer
I can't want for concrete facts regarding 4e to be published. As it stands, the rumors and third-party information have left a sour taste in my mouth.
Let's start with D&D Insider. Word has it that it will not be Mac-compatible, at least to start. This makes it useless, to me. Can I get a discounted rate, since I won't be able to run the applications? Oh, wait, can I just get DRAGON? Dungeons isn't very useful for my games. Hopefully by the time they make Mac versions of the applications, they won't look like 20-year old computer games. The PC visualizer looks like it only supports core races; I would like for it to support all playable races in the Monster Manual. The dungeon creator looks entirely two-dimensional. What about encounters in the air or underwater?
Losing a core race and class. It all depends on which ones they drop, I suppose. Half-elf and half-orc could easily be dropped in favor of becoming templates, just as paladin and barbarian could become PrCs. If they drop the bard, the game will be a lot less attractive to me. Keep the gnome and drop the halfling, make the Tolkien folks happy. And what is that new core race; a half-dragon or a tiefling? Tiefling would make no sense whatsoever. Why not add the aventi as a core race? In most campaign worlds there are more oceans and seas than there are planar portals or outsiders dabbling the affairs of mortals. Mind you, I have liked tieflings and half-fiends since the 1e days of alu-demons.
The redefining of the roles of monsters also troubles me. I’d prefer that every sentient race in the Monster Manual be available for use as a player character race. I rarely run campaigns that use the core races. For example, my current campaign assumes that PCs have a natural swim speed and can breathe underwater without the use of magic. Will 4e allow for PC merfolk, sea elves, locathah, and tritons? Not to mention awakened sharks, undead, animate figureheads, and the like.
Lack of Greyhawk support at launch is a given. I'm used to it. I can wait. Just don't expect me to run campaigns in Eberron or FR in the meantime. I’ve heard they are keeping some of the GH proper names but will also mention beings from other mythologies. Thor was given as an example. No thanks. If you’re going to dabble in real-world religions (never mind how ancient), then at least establish the witch and/or shaman as a core class.
In short, if 4e nurtures my imagination, encourages interactive storytelling betwixt players and DM, and instills a sense of wonder - I'm in. If 4e looks and feels like a video game - I'm out. I skipped 2e because it felt like the rules had been "dummied down". I came back with 3e. I'm hoping WotC doesn't make me establish a pattern.
Let's start with D&D Insider. Word has it that it will not be Mac-compatible, at least to start. This makes it useless, to me. Can I get a discounted rate, since I won't be able to run the applications? Oh, wait, can I just get DRAGON? Dungeons isn't very useful for my games. Hopefully by the time they make Mac versions of the applications, they won't look like 20-year old computer games. The PC visualizer looks like it only supports core races; I would like for it to support all playable races in the Monster Manual. The dungeon creator looks entirely two-dimensional. What about encounters in the air or underwater?
Losing a core race and class. It all depends on which ones they drop, I suppose. Half-elf and half-orc could easily be dropped in favor of becoming templates, just as paladin and barbarian could become PrCs. If they drop the bard, the game will be a lot less attractive to me. Keep the gnome and drop the halfling, make the Tolkien folks happy. And what is that new core race; a half-dragon or a tiefling? Tiefling would make no sense whatsoever. Why not add the aventi as a core race? In most campaign worlds there are more oceans and seas than there are planar portals or outsiders dabbling the affairs of mortals. Mind you, I have liked tieflings and half-fiends since the 1e days of alu-demons.
The redefining of the roles of monsters also troubles me. I’d prefer that every sentient race in the Monster Manual be available for use as a player character race. I rarely run campaigns that use the core races. For example, my current campaign assumes that PCs have a natural swim speed and can breathe underwater without the use of magic. Will 4e allow for PC merfolk, sea elves, locathah, and tritons? Not to mention awakened sharks, undead, animate figureheads, and the like.
Lack of Greyhawk support at launch is a given. I'm used to it. I can wait. Just don't expect me to run campaigns in Eberron or FR in the meantime. I’ve heard they are keeping some of the GH proper names but will also mention beings from other mythologies. Thor was given as an example. No thanks. If you’re going to dabble in real-world religions (never mind how ancient), then at least establish the witch and/or shaman as a core class.
In short, if 4e nurtures my imagination, encourages interactive storytelling betwixt players and DM, and instills a sense of wonder - I'm in. If 4e looks and feels like a video game - I'm out. I skipped 2e because it felt like the rules had been "dummied down". I came back with 3e. I'm hoping WotC doesn't make me establish a pattern.
