PDA

View Full Version : 4E: I don't wanna... Don't make meee... Please!



Kaelaroth
2007-09-29, 10:00 AM
OK.

I really don't want to have to switch to fourth edition. From what I've seen and heard about it, it is corrupting everything that was good about 3.5, and is trying (and failing) to fix all those little quirks that our current edition has...

Yet, my gaming group... please note, the only one in the area who actually are willing to play with me, are all eager to play 4e. As the newest to DnD of them, I like 3.5 a lot, yet for them it might be getting slightly stale.

So... am I the only one with 4e-phobia? How are you guys dealing...

And yes, all you critics out there, there have been other threads like this. I have merely decided to start my own.

Morty
2007-09-29, 10:05 AM
4ed doesn't look as promising as I had hoped, but I'm willing to keep and open mind. It's possible that it'll seriously miss my expectations, but I don't worry about it- I'll check the OGL they promise to release, and if I really don't like what I see, I'll stick to 3.5 and Warhammer- that I'm starting to like more than D&D. Simple.

Lyinginbedmon
2007-09-29, 10:14 AM
I'm keeping an open mind, but only so that I can swallow it all cerebrally to chew it up. Not unlike the Tarrasque, you hurl something down and hopefully no-one ever sees it again. That's what happened to the Head of Vecna, after all.

I mean, I've played with 3.5E since it came out, I was playing 3.0 before then for a good 3 years. I know it was bad, then 3.5 came along and suddenly everything was better (Right up until the massive sourcebook flood, but that's another issue). Haste didn't make you the Flash, Halfling weapons and Humans weapons were different, Pit Fiends and Balors actually qualified for their positions, it was a good time. It's been around for 7 years now, going on 8, and I've been here for all of them, it's the first edition I've had the pleasure of doing so.

Then, without warning, after thousands of representatives saying "No, we have no plans for a 4th Edition", it pops up with a blanking of the main page for like 2 days, a surprise announcement at a single convention, and the whole world cries out in anguish!

I don't blame them! The changes we've heard about so far are horrible; dropping 3 core classes, erasing entire species, 21 more spell levels, this is madness!*

*Yes, I know I'm going to get at least one 300 joke, go ahead and make it

Miraqariftsky
2007-09-29, 10:34 AM
I don't blame them! The changes we've heard about so far are horrible; dropping 3 core classes, erasing entire species, 21 more spell levels, this is madness!*

*Yes, I know I'm going to get at least one 300 joke, go ahead and make it

They dropped core classes?! Which ones?

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-29, 10:35 AM
They dropped core classes?! Which ones?
They haven't specified, but we know the first Player's Handbook will have only eight.

Artemician
2007-09-29, 10:36 AM
I'm not going to debate the merits of 4E in this thread.

Suffice to say that if you don't want to play 4E, nothing's forcing you to do so. There are people on these boards who still play AD&D.

Draz74
2007-09-29, 10:39 AM
They dropped core classes?! Which ones?

Ones that are really the same as each other, except with different Talents.

E.g. in a system with flexible Talent trees instead of rigid class feature progressions, the Barbarian is really just a Fighter who picks certain rage- and toughness-style talents.

If it were me, I'd make it so that a Druid is just a Cleric who picks certain domains (nature, plant, animal ...) and certain talents. At most, I'd make it a PrC that a nature cleric could go into.

I'd make Paladin a PrC too. And I wouldn't have Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock all be core classes; two is enough (one with wizard flavor and one with warlock flavor, whatever their actual names are).

Ganon11
2007-09-29, 10:52 AM
I was resistant to 3.5e for one reason and one reason only: money. I didn't have the money available to switch my (newly bought) 3e books to 3.5. When I got the money, I made the switch, and I've been happy.

I'll probably hold off on 4e for the same reason: I just don't have the cash flow to justify buying a whole new set of rulebooks.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-09-29, 10:53 AM
I haven't been keeping a close eye on 4e, so I can't comment on the details - but from the looks of it, enough changes that I won't be switching to it any time soon. It still depends on what changes and how it changes, but I doubt I'll be able to retcon most of it into my ongoing game very well. Like, say, MAGIC.

Granted, I'll probably buy the 4e stuff and might even use it and like it, but the 3.5 magic system is the official magic system of the only game I'm using D&D for, so 3.5 will have to remain, probably for a good long time.

Sundog
2007-09-29, 10:57 AM
Eh. I don't intend to buy 4th ed.

I don't need it. I don't want to play it. I like 3.5.

If they bring out Eberron supplements I'll get those, and translate back.

horseboy
2007-09-29, 10:59 AM
Well, it's not like it could be worse than 3.X. :smallyuk:
Wether or not it's better has yet to be seen.

Moff Chumley
2007-09-29, 11:07 AM
Without debating the specifics of 4e, of which there are practically none, I am of the opinion that it will be in the same league as 3.5, but whether the difference is enough to spend ~$100 on, that's anyone's guess.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-29, 11:08 AM
Well, it's not like it could be worse than 3.X. :smallyuk:
Wether or not it's better has yet to be seen.
It could easily be worse than 3e. For instance, it could be 2e post-Player's Option. Or pre-Player's Option, for that matter. :smalltongue:

Crow
2007-09-29, 11:20 AM
I just wish they would give us a preview worth reading.

I am sure there are very many people who give a damn about "cosmology", and the difference between devils and demons, or the wonderously well thought out "points of light" article.

But I am not one of them.

I run a homebrew campaign setting, and all their previews have done for me is shift my attitude from "curious but skeptical" to "disinterested and apathetic".

Kiero
2007-09-29, 11:23 AM
I really don't want to have to switch to fourth edition.

Yet, my gaming group... please note, the only one in the area who actually are willing to play with me, are all eager to play 4e.

So your choices are simple. Put aside your reservations and play, or if it's really bothering you, don't play.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-29, 11:28 AM
I just wish they would give us a preview worth reading.

I am sure there are very many people who give a damn about "cosmology", and the difference between devils and demons, or the wonderously well thought out "points of light" article.

But I am not one of them.

I run a homebrew campaign setting, and all their previews have done for me is shift my attitude from "curious but skeptical" to "disinterested and apathetic".
The reason they haven't given any definitive preview so far for actual game mechanics is because they haven't finalized anything yet. They're concerned that presenting "finalized" mechanics, and then later having to alter them due to a system fix would make them lose face, look bad, or otherwise not look like they know what they're doing.

The irony inherent in this is that they would probably look better if they were to do this, so we would be able to watch the progress.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-29, 11:32 AM
Then, without warning, after thousands of representatives saying "No, we have no plans for a 4th Edition", it pops up with a blanking of the main page for like 2 days, a surprise announcement at a single convention, and the whole world cries out in anguish!

Note how now, thousands of representatives are saying "No, we have no plans for a 4.5 Edition"...

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-29, 11:38 AM
Keep playing in 3.X if you want, nobody's stopping you. However, keep in mind that eventually everything will be about 4E, and people won't talk about 3.X again, just like you can't find much 2E stuff right now on these boards.

Besides, you'll eventually get the money and switch over anyways! :smalltongue:

Airo Valeth
2007-09-29, 11:50 AM
I think it's too early to talk about like or dislike of 4e right now as there is only limited info around the net.
I just have problems on paying another $200 for core stuff again
So maybe I'll just borrow books from my friend once 4e is release. :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2007-09-29, 12:06 PM
Keep playing in 3.X if you want, nobody's stopping you. However, keep in mind that eventually everything will be about 4E, and people won't talk about 3.X again,

I'm not so sure that this is the case. There is more 3E stuff on the web than 2E simply because 2E predates the internet. There is in fact a system on the web that simulates most of 1E, nowadays.

Solo
2007-09-29, 12:38 PM
OK.

I really don't want to have to switch to fourth edition. From what I've seen and heard about it, it is corrupting everything that was good about 3.5, and is trying (and failing) to fix all those little quirks that our current edition has...

Yet, my gaming group... please note, the only one in the area who actually are willing to play with me, are all eager to play 4e. As the newest to DnD of them, I like 3.5 a lot, yet for them it might be getting slightly stale.

So... am I the only one with 4e-phobia? How are you guys dealing...

And yes, all you critics out there, there have been other threads like this. I have merely decided to start my own.

If it bothers you that much, then stick wtih 3.5e.

But as we all know, WotC has implanted self destruct microchip bombs in all their 3.x books, will send a computer virus to eliminate all PDF copies of said books, and brainwash people into forgetting about the rules of 3.x forcing everyone to play DnD 4.0.

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-29, 12:47 PM
Personally, I want to play 4e before I have an opinion. Though, as of now, I'm sticking with 3.x since I have invested so much into it as do my players. Sure we are excited about it, but none of us want to shell out our limited spending money for a game so close to what we already have.

TSGames
2007-09-29, 01:27 PM
So... am I the only one with 4e-phobia? How are you guys dealing...

And yes, all you critics out there, there have been other threads like this. I have merely decided to start my own.

I am wary of 4.0 because it seems that action points will be core. However, I like the fact that it seems gnomes may not be in the core races. I'm not 4E-phobic, but I do want to see the rules before I switch over. I really hope that they have a without action points variant.




But as we all know, WotC has implanted self destruct microchip bombs in all their 3.x books, will send a computer virus to eliminate all PDF copies of said books, and brainwash people into forgetting about the rules of 3.x forcing everyone to play DnD 4.0.

Interesting... Was just thinking about modifying this statement a little... Replace WotC with 'Microsoft'. 3.x books with "Windows NT' and PDF copies with 'software copies', and then, replace 4.0 with 'Vista'. I hope 4.0 isn't like this even remotely...

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-29, 01:48 PM
The irony inherent in this is that they would probably look better if they were to do this, so we would be able to watch the progress.Reeeeal questionable. The video game industry has actually been drifting towards the not-giving-big-previews model for a while. Shows like E3, while good publicity, also had a tendency to majorly boop-up development -- E3 in particular introduced a huge time crunch in terms of prep, and the inherent problem here is that that huge time crunch has everything to do with making a trailer or demo and nothing to do with making the game itself. Further, you're still left telling the audience "Hey, all that stuff you see that doesn't work? It's totally going to, so don't worry about it." It's not really any different from what we're getting out of WotC, except that when you're playing a demo it feels pretty done, making those promises sound even more hollow.

KIDS
2007-09-29, 01:52 PM
Yet, my gaming group... please note, the only one in the area who actually are willing to play with me, are all eager to play 4e. As the newest to DnD of them, I like 3.5 a lot, yet for them it might be getting slightly stale.

They will not bowl over you or leave you alone with 3.5 if you view 4E as a change but don't want it yet because you'd rather keep it a small, cozy game with rules you know already. If you scream that it's broken or coming to get you via devilish plot by WotC (which is irrationally hated everywhere as a sense of fashion, actually), they will sense it and be much more eager for 4E than they already are.

So it is only your attitude and openess about this change that counts - their reactions depend on it and you can make it go either way.

brian c
2007-09-29, 01:53 PM
I don't blame them! The changes we've heard about so far are horrible; dropping 3 core classes, erasing entire species, 21 more spell levels, this is madness!*

No one ever said they were erasing a species, just that it won't be in the PHB 4e. It's probably gnomes, based on speculation, and it would be very easy for WotC to re-introduce gnomes in a later supplement, or even in one of those "optional core" books.

Anyway, I don't see whats so bad about having more spell levels and less classes. More spell levels means that caster power level is more of a gradual increase, and if they assign spells to the right levels it might even make them balanced (gasp!). Less classes just means that they streamlined them a little; Scout is now part of Ranger, Monk/Barbarian can definitely be types of Fighter, etc.

Guildorn Tanaleth
2007-09-29, 02:08 PM
I'm not so sure that this is the case. There is more 3E stuff on the web than 2E simply because 2E predates the internet. There is in fact a system on the web that simulates most of 1E, nowadays.

I am physically compelled to correct you on this; the internet began in 1969 and started being viable with TCP/IP and Usenet in the late 70s to early 80s. Second edition was published in 1989, the same year that the World Wide Web (which is just one use of the internet, not the internet itself) was invented.

This has been your daily serving of correcting misconceptions about the history of technology. Tune in tomorrow for a lesson on how Apple was once greater than Microsoft.

Roderick_BR
2007-09-29, 02:42 PM
As long the erased classes can be played by the existing classes (for example, you want a monk? Use a fighter with Unarmed Strike and Dodge) as long it is viable.
I actually like the idea of having less base classes, then having variations inside it, since someone mentioned that 3.x have too many base classes and prestige classes. We need so many?
If they fix the feat and spell system, it's all good to me.
I'm not sure about changing cosmology. It'll be weird.
I read somewhere that the basic system (6 base stats, character and class levels, feats, skills, Hit Points) will be the same, that's why there will be no need for a conversion manual.

SexyOchreJelly
2007-09-29, 04:02 PM
Fourth Edition looks absolutely useless.

Almost everyone I know who plays DnD is staying at 3.5.

kpenguin
2007-09-29, 04:13 PM
I don't blame them! The changes we've heard about so far are horrible; dropping 3 core classes, erasing entire species, 21 more spell levels, this is madness!*

*Yes, I know I'm going to get at least one 300 joke, go ahead and make it

Oh come on, no one took the opportunity to say "THIS IS FOURTH EDITION!"

*kicks Lyingbedmon into a well*

Anyway, I'm going to just wait and see how 4E is going to go. I really don't want to have to spend 90+ dollars on new core books if the system isn't really what its hyped about. I'll probably convert eventually, though.

horseboy
2007-09-29, 04:22 PM
This has been your daily serving of correcting misconceptions about the history of technology. Tune in tomorrow for a lesson on how Apple was once greater than Microsoft.

LoL! I found one of my old floppy drives for my Apple II+ in my closet the other day. I could club a baby seal with that thing. :smallbiggrin:
Or, to tie this to the thread, a WotC game designer.

de-trick
2007-09-29, 04:28 PM
I don't like 4.0 and probably won't play it. Sure some stuff is complicated but if you study up on it not that difficult, only thing is spells but thats the nature of spells complicated. Also I think if they started planning 4.0 why are they making new 3.5 books, I think that there trying to make some more money while they can

using the spatula to get last drops of 3.5, but I'm still playing 3.5

kjones
2007-09-29, 05:12 PM
Look, the most important thing about 4E won't be the fluff we've been seeing so far, but how the crunchy bits perform as compared to 3E, specifically concerning issues such as class balance, the new magic system, ease of combat, etc. We really don't know much about the important stuff, so it's much too early for anyone to judge, in either direction.

kamikasei
2007-09-29, 05:30 PM
Well, honestly, I think it's far to early to pronounce that 4ed is "corrupting everything that was good about 3.5" - there just isn't the information there to back up such a claim. I suggest you give it a chance.

I mean, you know 3.5, and you like it. You don't know 4th ed, so maybe you'd like it as much or more. The only way to find out is to try it. Make your reservations known to the group. Point out that there'll be no very clean way to convert an ongoing 3.5 campaign, so you should continue with 3.5 if you have anything in play already. If they're eager to try 4th ed, go along with it for a short (couple of sessions) game. What do you have to lose? Don't you stand to gain a new and better system that will be more enjoyable for all? Isn't that worth committing to a few sessions that you might not enjoy (and which presumably won't actually be more or less like having your teeth pulled without anesthetic)?

Tyger
2007-09-29, 05:54 PM
I think that most of the people here will ultimately start playing 4E, though they may say otherwise now. Just look around at the very few people still playing 2E, and you have your answer as to the viability of sticking with an older and no longer supported (and eventually not discussed on internet forums either) version.

And not liking 4E at this point is kind of like my two year old looking at asparagus and saying "Yucky!" without ever trying it. He doesn't know anything about it, how can he possibly dislike it. :) That said, the same goes for those who already "like" 4E too...

Open mind folks. Its a treasure worth savoring.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 05:58 PM
Your two year old is likely WISer than you, man, with no offense. At such an early age, you're a kind of instinctual, which means he reacted on a nonrational way. BTW, DID he like the asparagus?

psychoticbarber
2007-09-29, 06:39 PM
I have to reiterate Tyger's sentiments. I don't think there's enough information to make a serious judgment as to what 4e will be.

My byline on the subject right now is: Well, they're certainly paying lip-service to the sorts of things I'd like to see change. I don't know if they'll follow through in the way I want them to, but they're at least talking about the things I want them to be talking about.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 06:47 PM
As long as polymorph is even half fixed, and we can implement The Nameless One, count me in.

Lyinginbedmon
2007-09-29, 08:03 PM
Oh come on, no one took the opportunity to say "THIS IS FOURTH EDITION!"

*kicks Lyingbedmon into a well*

Anyway, I'm going to just wait and see how 4E is going to go. I really don't want to have to spend 90+ dollars on new core books if the system isn't really what its hyped about. I'll probably convert eventually, though.

I knew it was coming, didn't think it'd take so long though...

Eventually, I'll have to graduate from 3.5 to 4.0. Not because I'll like it, but because they'll stop making 3.5 material. Eventually, the surviving material will stagnate and become overdone and tired, I just don't have the strength of character to do what so many proud retrogamers do and play an unsupported system. It'll be a pain in the hind-quarters to update my homebrew material, especially the Laws of Magic and Magic Physics, which are based largely on generalisations from the existing system.

I think it's ironically the system evolution I need to keep me interested, Incarnum there, rebuilding here, a little splash of Psionics and Maneuvers in the corner...

Solo
2007-09-29, 08:04 PM
Exactly how will the existing material become stagnant, overdone and tired?

I wouldn't have an issue playing with existing material for years.

Lyinginbedmon
2007-09-29, 08:06 PM
Exactly how will the existing material become stagnant, overdone and tired?

I'll have to play it four hundred times is how, it'll become repetitive, at least for me.

Solo
2007-09-29, 08:07 PM
So you want new stuff.... you just don't want the new stuff to come via a new edition.

Lyinginbedmon
2007-09-29, 08:08 PM
So you want new stuff.... you just don't want the new stuff to come via a new edition.

I did say ironically right? :smallconfused:

ArmorArmadillo
2007-09-29, 08:27 PM
Oh for the love of Gygax....

Do any of you actually have actually have any idea what is going to be in 4e? Except losing 1 base race and 3 classes (which doesn't really mean anything, as having an entire new system will problem mean classes function entirely differently) and the fact that there are 30 spell levels (Which only means that spells will function entirely differently, so you have no idea how it will affect things)

Yet somehow everyone has developed this irrational fear of how "omigawd 4e is going to ruin everything!"

Frankly, all I've seen is that there is likely going to be a better skill/feat/spell system.

Until you see actual rules or previews, then don't get all "Chicken Little" on the issue.


And if at the end of it all, you don't like 4e, just keep playing 3.5.

(P.S. People resisted 2e to 3e just like this)

TheOOB
2007-09-29, 08:30 PM
I find it very amusing that all these people are saying that they don't like 4e when it's not out yet, we have virtually no concrete data on it, and it's not coming out for almost a year.

People complain like this every time a new D&D edition comes out, yet still most people are playing 3.5 now. People will continue to play 3.5, just as people still play 3e, 2e, 1e, and so on, but regardless of all the complaining, most the people here will end up playing 4e in the future, and they will enjoy it. Heck, most likely they will look down upon 3.5 players, like many 3.5 players look down on 2e players. The fact is, unless WotC screws up really bad (and last I checked most people liked 3e and 3.5, so they have a good record), 4e will be a smash success and a great game.

Me, I'm preparing for when everyone complains about 5e before it comes out and talks about still playing 4e, and you know what, you still will be able to, WotC isn't going to come to your house and burn your books.

Lavin
2007-09-29, 09:25 PM
I can understand where everyone is coming from, being from that direction myself. v3.5 has served everyone really well in the past, and v4 is a new and scary thing. We don't know what will be changed, edited, or deleted. What is being added is a less frightening prospect, yet still quite eerie in the conspicuous absence of that which we already know and love. I am sure that every generation of D and D has experienced the same feeling of loss and disappointment with every new rendition. Yet, it must be serving everyone well, look at how popular the game is! I personally will not be buying the new edition unless I come into some free money. I paid a lot for 3.5, and intend to get every pennies worth out of it.
Change is different, but should not be feared.

Until later, my friends.
-Lavin

Roderick_BR
2007-09-29, 09:40 PM
Well, I think people is just upset by the money grabing thing.
Because, really, people complained that 3rd edition would "ruin" AD&D, and I even saw some old websites complaining how AD&D "ruined" 1st edition. I don't see much a difference, as long they fix things.

Bosh
2007-09-29, 10:05 PM
They haven't specified, but we know the first Player's Handbook will have only eight.

Not they said that there'd be AT LEAST eight. Seeesh.
In any case I'd MUCH prefer a handful of well-designed classes than a larger number of sloppier classes. Base class bloat was a big problem in 3.5 ed.

In any case just about everything that they've announced (except for the stupid-sounding wizard traditions) sounds like something I've homebrewed, fixes something that pissed me off about 3.5 or is just cool. I've gone from cautiously optimistic to quite excited.

Dausuul
2007-09-29, 10:05 PM
They haven't specified, but we know the first Player's Handbook will have only eight.

The way things are looking right now, the eight classes will be:

Cleric
Fighter
Paladin (albeit a radically altered Paladin, since they mentioned paladins of Asmodeus)
Ranger
Rogue
Warlock or Sorceror (not yet clear which name they're going to go with)
Warlord
Wizard

All of the above have been mentioned at one point or another by the 4E developers. Originally they claimed the sorceror and wizard killed the warlock and took his stuff, but lately they've been talking about warlocks in 4E, so there may have been a change of plans on that one.

Crow
2007-09-29, 10:11 PM
The way things are looking right now, the eight classes will be:

Cleric
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Warlock or Sorceror (not yet clear which name they're going to go with)
Warlord
Wizard

All of the above have been mentioned at one point or another by the 4E developers. Originally they claimed the sorceror and wizard killed the warlock and took his stuff, but lately they've been talking about warlocks in 4E, so there may have been a change of plans on that one.

I actually liked the Basic and Advanced classes from D20 Modern. I wouldn't mind having a more generic "scout" instead of the "wilderness man" ranger.

Lavin
2007-09-29, 10:15 PM
The way things are looking right now, the eight classes will be:

Cleric
Fighter
Paladin (albeit a radically altered Paladin, since they mentioned paladins of Asmodeus)
Ranger
Rogue
Warlock or Sorceror (not yet clear which name they're going to go with)
Warlord
Wizard

All of the above have been mentioned at one point or another by the 4E developers. Originally they claimed the sorceror and wizard killed the warlock and took his stuff, but lately they've been talking about warlocks in 4E, so there may have been a change of plans on that one.

What happened to Druids, do you suppose? Was there anythig wrong with them? I think that they were just fine...
Chruncy and fluffy, they both worked. And the Barbarian? Where did he go? And what precicely, is a Warlord?

Green Bean
2007-09-29, 10:22 PM
What happened to Druids, do you suppose? Was there anythig wrong with them? I think that they were just fine...
Chruncy and fluffy, they both worked. And the Barbarian? Where did he go? And what precicely, is a Warlord?

Crunch-wise, the druid worked a little too well.

KBF
2007-09-29, 10:55 PM
There is plenty of info (for me, at least) on EN World. (At least) It has a list of changes that were ever mentioned publicly. Ever.

TheOOB
2007-09-29, 11:07 PM
Considering that the PHB isn't coming out till like May, there is more then enough time for anything and everything to change, we may come out of this with 4 classes, we may come out with 100, we just dont know for sure yet.

horseboy
2007-09-29, 11:46 PM
Crunch-wise, the druid worked a little too well.

That's like calling a crocodile a lizard.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-09-29, 11:51 PM
What happened to Druids, do you suppose? Was there anythig wrong with them? I think that they were just fine...
Chruncy and fluffy, they both worked. And the Barbarian? Where did he go? And what precicely, is a Warlord?

We don't know that Druids are missing, by all regards they probably won't be.


But again, I don't know, and the worst thing we can do for ourselves is take small scraps of information and try to extrapolate them into facts when we have no real cause to do so.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-30, 12:26 AM
Isn't that worth committing to a few sessions that you might not enjoy (and which presumably won't actually be more or less like having your teeth pulled without anesthetic)?

So in other words, it's exactly like having your teeth pulled without anaesthetic.:smalltongue:

Edit: On a more serious note, I have no complaints about changing the crunch. However, someone will burn(in the "liquid heat in my jockstrap OH GODS WHY?" sort of way) for removing Succubi from the Abyss.:smallfurious: I nominate Baker.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-30, 01:24 AM
Well. I'll stand by what I've said on previous threads:

A) The great thing about the internet is that we can now hate things with a semblence of authority long before it even exists.

and

B) Change is bad, and must be feared and stomped out.



Thank you.

Dervag
2007-09-30, 01:53 AM
As long as polymorph is even half fixed, and we can implement The Nameless One, count me in.Is there anything you can safely tell me about the Nameless One without Naming It?


And not liking 4E at this point is kind of like my two year old looking at asparagus and saying "Yucky!" without ever trying it. He doesn't know anything about it, how can he possibly dislike it. :)Because it looks ugly and green and goopy?

And I think that's the problem with what they've seen so far of 4E, too. A lot of it looks bad because it's clear that they're removing features some people like and not clear what they're adding that makes up for it, because any real improvements likely to be made to the game are going to be in the form of mechanical stuff that simply won't be released until the actual game comes out.

And, of course, there are plenty of people who didn't like asparagus when they first saw it and still don't like asparagus, so it isn't always true that zeroth impressions are false.


I am physically compelled to correct you on this; the internet began in 1969 and started being viable with TCP/IP and Usenet in the late 70s to early 80s. Second edition was published in 1989, the same year that the World Wide Web (which is just one use of the internet, not the internet itself) was invented.

This has been your daily serving of correcting misconceptions about the history of technology. Tune in tomorrow for a lesson on how Apple was once greater than Microsoft.I almost responded, then just barely noticed the sarcasm in time. I've said it once, and I'll say it again:

Using sarcasm on me is like dynamiting fish in a barrel.


Oh come on, no one took the opportunity to say "THIS IS FOURTH EDITION!"

*kicks Lyingbedmon into a well*I was going to say "THIS IS WIZAARDS!" and kick him over a seacliff in Washington State, but I guess you already got him.


Anyway, I'm going to just wait and see how 4E is going to go. I really don't want to have to spend 90+ dollars on new core books if the system isn't really what its hyped about. I'll probably convert eventually, though.Did you willingly spend the money for the 3.5 core books?


I actually liked the Basic and Advanced classes from D20 Modern. I wouldn't mind having a more generic "scout" instead of the "wilderness man" ranger.It would make sense. On the other hand, the 'wild man' wilderness ranger appeals strongly to fantasy archetypes, and the 'frontiersman' image of the ranger appeals to the American market. So it's hard to fault them for having a ranger.

Though they might have the ranger a set of talent options that lead them into a more scouty approach (emphasis on tactical scouting rather than on wilderness survival).


What happened to Druids, do you suppose? Was there anythig wrong with them? I think that they were just fine...
Chruncy and fluffy, they both worked. And the Barbarian? Where did he go? And what precicely, is a Warlord?Druids are extremely powerful and are arguably just a subset of clerics; this is definitely the case if clerics can worship an ideal. I mean, what's the difference between a cleric of nature-in-the-abstract and a druid? Likewise, the sharp distinction between a barbarian and a fighter is somewhat artificial.


Edit: On a more serious note, I have no complaints about changing the crunch. However, someone will burn(in the "liquid heat in my jockstrap OH GODS WHY?" sort of way) for removing Succubi from the Abyss.:smallfurious: I nominate Baker.Well, I guess it makes sense to blame a such a burning sensation on a succubus, but on the other hand...

why, objectively, must succubi be from the Abyss? We've got this very strong mental classification of devils/lawful and demons/chaotic, and OK, succubi probably shouldn't be lawful since their preferred tactic is betrayal. But are we sure that 4E is going to make all the 'devils' (presumably including succubi) lawful evil?

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-30, 02:01 AM
It would make sense. On the other hand, the 'wild man' wilderness ranger appeals strongly to fantasy archetypes, and the 'frontiersman' image of the ranger appeals to the American market. So it's hard to fault them for having a ranger.

Plus, Aragorn. Not that the ranger class is necessarily the best fit for representing Aragorn, except in title. With any luck, this wisecrack won't explode into a Alexandrian v. Tolkien Fan debate about Aragorn's stats.

I say he is ECL 12, and that Numenorian has both LA and racial HD. :smalltongue:

The Extinguisher
2007-09-30, 02:07 AM
I'll stick to 3.5 for now. I just started playing less than half a year ago, so I'd rather not have to learn everything over again.

Plus, I don't like this online thing that much. Sure you don't have to play it, but it still annoys me.

Zincorium
2007-09-30, 02:11 AM
Plus, I don't like this online thing that much. Sure you don't have to play it, but it still annoys me.

That's kind of like being pissed that other people have leather seats in their cars, just because you don't like the feel of leather seats.

WotC has said again and again that the game itself, D&D, will still be played around a kitchen table with dice, as always. All of the online stuff is simply an option that you can take bit's and pieces of if you like or get it all if you like it that much. It's an alternative for people like me who don't even live in the same state (soon to be country) as their old gaming friends.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-30, 02:22 AM
why, objectively, must succubi be from the Abyss? We've got this very strong mental classification of devils/lawful and demons/chaotic, and OK, succubi probably shouldn't be lawful since their preferred tactic is betrayal. But are we sure that 4E is going to make all the 'devils' (presumably including succubi) lawful evil?

The fact that Assmodeus is now Ass-more-dei-us implies that they're not gonna lose the whole Devils=Lawful Evil angle.


Devils want to impose a sort of order -- specifically theirs -- on the cosmos.

Plus the whole "humanoid=devil" means the loss of Malcanthet and Graz'zt, and yeah, I think overall, they're trying to "sex up" the devils while downplaying the demons(who become relegated to the roles of "brutes to be killed"), because they saw how people prefer the Abyss to Baator(can you blame them? The Abyss has 666 layers, at least, while Baator has 9, thereby having many more possible adventure hooks. That and Asmodeus has been in charge for like, ever. Get rid of his wrinkled old ass already.).

Altair_the_Vexed
2007-09-30, 02:32 AM
I'm not fussed about this so-called 4th Ed. From what I've read so far, it isn't going to be D&D, but rather a new fantasy role playing system.

As for all these changes to fluff? Well, I've never used pre-published fluff in all my twenty-few years of gaming (at least I've never used a whole setting, even if I plundered bits here and there).
The only way I can see WotC really dropping the ball on this is if there's no 4th Ed SRD. That would suck, really badly.

I, for one, welcome our new 4th Edition overlords - in as much as I'll plunder the good bits (assuming there's an SRD) and carry on inventing my own: just like the rule books tell you to.

Roderick_BR
2007-09-30, 02:39 AM
Hmm.. actually, having 3 base classes for each tier would be interesting. That would be a total of 12 new classes, but I guess we could have everything tucked into it. Three martial classes, three divine classes, three arcane classes, and three specialist classes. As things are going now, looks like there'll be only 2 for each tier, though.
Base and advanced classes? Now that would be cool. The levels could literally divided into basic (level 1-10), advanced (11-20), and epic (21-30).

Kaelaroth
2007-09-30, 04:15 AM
And what precicely, is a Warlord?

I think a Warlord is their new "Leader" class majiggy. Like a combo of bard, fighter and cleric.




----------------



Well, I am happy that people have responded to my thread, even if many of you have different opinions to me.
Yet still, my terror remains. :eek:

Morty
2007-09-30, 04:21 AM
Yet still, my terror remains. :eek:

Terror of... what, exactly? Given the number of people claiming that they'll stick to 3.x even after 4ed comes out, I'm preety sure 3.x won't become obsolete.

Kaelaroth
2007-09-30, 04:26 AM
My terror consists of:

1. The aforementioned lack of new material to be produced.
2. The plausibility that my beloved DnD3.5 might get stale, especially due to (1).
3. My gaming group may switch when I'm not ready to.
4. Due to (3), my gaming may violently shift, from anything such as being forced to stop altogether, being forced to play a game I dislike, or having to find a new group.
5. They killed DRUIDS!!!!!
6. And GNOMES!!!

On the other hand I may just be stupidly paranoid.

Morty
2007-09-30, 04:34 AM
6. And GNOMES!!!

And for this I'm willing to forgive them removing Vancian casting and few other things they may come up with.:smallbiggrin:

Kaelaroth
2007-09-30, 04:35 AM
You Gnomist! There are places for people like you!

*runs away crying*

Spiryt
2007-09-30, 04:45 AM
5. They killed DRUIDS!!!!!


Well, it's nothing sure. Besides it's probably better to kill druids, than left them broken as they're.

Maybe they will develop some better cleric system, and druids will be just clerics of certain things (nature et cetera of course). That wcould be good.

KIDS
2007-09-30, 05:05 AM
There was a time when I saw all the whining about 4E and were curious as to what was so bad about it and how it was going to kill D&D and all this other stuff. I dug into its resources and the message boards and the discussions and all stuff of that kind. As someone said before, 2ED roughly came in with the world wide web so there are few traces remaining, but discussions continue. And most of all, today's people can tell you how they felt about 2ED at that time too.

So I made some research and I still didn't get it. 4E seemed like a fun change for the better continuing the good trend that the D&D has taken for several years now, and I couldn't figure out anything else except that it maybe came too soon (a few more years would have been better IMO). On the other hand, people kept whining about the death of D&D, parasitic leeching coompany and all that stuff. So why...? Heck, even those rumors about 4E were nowhere around the scale to incite such reactions.

Digging further and asking for the people's opinions of previous editions I realized one very strange but comforting fact. However as much it is a generalization do note that I don't mean "everyone" when saying it, but that is the gist of it:

Those same people whining today about death of D&D in face of "$"E have been whining for years and older even decades. They hate 3E, depise 3.5, think that 2E was a parasitic expansion which ruined their enjoyment and that WotC is an evil conglomerate that destroyed "their" game. And still they play it, and still they whine, even about 4E which is just a glimpse at this point but they know that it will further ruin them.

Note again, not everyone and there are people with good reasons and good explanations that are longer than "it sucks". But that is my opinion of the current state of opposition. Saying that "it sucks" makes you appear powerful and smart (oooh I said it sucks, it must be because my genius is unparalleled) and I can completely understand the reasons. Everyone likes to be respected, and bullying something you see in front of others is the primal way of gaining respect.
Now maybe I'm too optimistic or something, but I can't understand why someone would live years and years and more of such fear and hatred like some "past man" from Turgenev's novels. Geez, that must make them respected because the entire company of a thousand people sucks compared to them.
And actually, no one is denying (you) the right to dislike 4E; I acknowledge that it is mentality that makes up the final touch to the game and that you can be perfectly happy in any edition, including the first one, so I never spit on previous editions. Be so kind and extend the same courtesy to us who see something good in 4E. Thankee.

Kaelaroth
2007-09-30, 05:46 AM
I deeply apologise if I offended anyone's sensibilities by sounding whiney. I am a panicky deep-seated emotional problems kind of person at times. KIDS, I am also deeply sorry if to you I came over as a whiny little brat with no foresight whatsoever. Apparently we aren't meant to consider ourselves at any point these days.

And I loved 1E through to 3.5 - it's just 4E that's freaking the hell out of me.

Josh the Aspie
2007-09-30, 05:51 AM
In 2nd edition Druids were a variant on priests, showing how a DM can customize the class, fleshing out one of the many examples they gave. In 3.x they were a base class. Healer, which seems similar to a cleric of a diety of love and peace from 2nd edition, became a base class as well. In 4.x, perhaps they will go back to being 'varrient' based on how one does or does not select from talent trees.

I've played games that use talent trees. They actually seem fairly nifty to me.

I haven't read up on 4th edition, and what we currently have been told may be coming, but until then, I'm not panicking. I'm fairly sure that if there are character types I reeeeally want to play, we can do some kind of temporary house ruling or conversion when I play with more creative DMs.

KIDS
2007-09-30, 06:07 AM
No offense taken, this was more a general observation than anything aimed at this forum which is why I tried to write it stingless. So keep discussing and peace with you :)

I intend to (unless something horrible surfaces) get 4E and try it out, though I predict that majority of my games will remain in 3.5 for at least few more years until I slowly make the jump. Right now I hold 3.5 as quite good.

Spiryt
2007-09-30, 06:09 AM
Well, to be honest, I'm really hopeful about 4ed.

I like many things that they said about 4ed. Seriously, 3.5 is great thing, but is unfortunately really flawed. Some discussed to death things, like Two weapon F, do problems even in my campaign - and it's completetly not classic "next monsters now", and and no one is metagaming or powegaming.

I just hope that they will do something that casting/flying/polymorphing wouldn't be basis of adventuring. They seem to reworking casting system e.c. quite seriously, so I'm hopeful.

If it somehow would be worse, we can still play 3.5

Jarlax
2007-09-30, 08:10 AM
I intend to (unless something horrible surfaces) get 4E and try it out, though I predict that majority of my games will remain in 3.5 for at least few more years until I slowly make the jump. Right now I hold 3.5 as quite good.

same here, my gaming group runs most 3.5 games without book restriction to include all 3.5 and a few later 3.0 books that have subjects that not been revisited. and they intend to play with the wealth of options for some time to come, because 4.0 will not have that same wealth of options for many, many years yet. returning to Core, even a new Core, doesn't appeal to them.

however i will still buy 4.0 books. since there wont be any new 3.5 stuff to buy i might as well get 4.0 in order to keep supporting my local gaming store and try out organized play through D&D insider online one night a week.

Serenity
2007-09-30, 08:51 AM
My terror consists of:

1. The aforementioned lack of new material to be produced.
2. The plausibility that my beloved DnD3.5 might get stale, especially due to (1).
3. My gaming group may switch when I'm not ready to.
4. Due to (3), my gaming may violently shift, from anything such as being forced to stop altogether, being forced to play a game I dislike, or having to find a new group.
5. They killed DRUIDS!!!!!
6. And GNOMES!!!

On the other hand I may just be stupidly paranoid.

1) There's literally hundreds of splatbooks out there, altogether providing thousands of new/variant rules, new spells, new classes, new feats, etc. You've probably got a dozen on your shelf right now. They'll still be usable, and you can always combine various things from them to create interesting new characters.
2) With the exception of adventure modules, published material provides only mechanics and suggestions for fluff. As long as the individual player can create a character and make it his own beyond the stats on the page, as long as the DM can craft new and interesting adventures, D&D can never go stale.
3&4) Take the opportunity to talk calmly and rationally with your gaming group. Tell them, without screaming, ranting, or whining, that you are ambivalent about 4.0. Point out that converting in the middle of a campaign could be a problem, so it would be a good idea to at least finish the campaign you're doing before you switch. Suggest that the first 4.0 game the group tries be a short adventure, so that everyone can test the waters and make an informed decision before fully taking the plunge. People are, by and large, reasonable if approached politely and calmly about a problem.
5) This is not known with anything approaching certainty.
6) They said that a few races will not be appearing in the 4.0 Player's Handbook, Gnomes being a prime candidate for who they meant. This might yet change between now and the May release date, and nothing says they won't provide gnomes in a supplement--perhaps the 4.0 Eberron campaign setting, sinve gnomes are fairly important in that world.

Hawriel
2007-09-30, 09:17 AM
Eh from what Ive seen/heard here on the boads Im not to impressed with whats being suggested 4ed will like. Then again Im a cynic. So Im going to addopt a wait and see atitude. I will wait untill the book is on a store shelf, go to a store read through it and see if it maybe worth a try. Like I did with shadowrun 4th ed. I waited almost over a year. Looked at the book declared it crap and never touched it again. 4th ed. had another thing stacked against it. Like many of you Ive payed to much mony on to many books just to chuck them out the window in order to buy the same stuff over again for another addition. Thats is reason is also why I didnt get into 4th ed shadowrun.

I say this to D&D. I'll honestly look at the book when it comes out. If I think its worth it I buy it. IF not well I have a crap load of 3.5 books and so do my friends.

Ranis
2007-09-30, 10:04 AM
As primarily a DM and a player second, I'm not going to have a real opinion about 4.0 until I run a game of it. And that's not for a little less than a year now.

Dausuul
2007-09-30, 11:24 AM
What happened to Druids, do you suppose? Was there anythig wrong with them? I think that they were just fine...
Chruncy and fluffy, they both worked. And the Barbarian? Where did he go? And what precicely, is a Warlord?

My guess would be that the cleric killed the druid and took his stuff, and the fighter did the same to the barbarian.

As for the warlord, we don't have much in the way of details yet, but we do know there are four "roles" for classes: Leader (help other classes be better at what they do), Defender (hold the enemy at bay), Striker (take out key targets), and Controller (reshape the battlefield in your favor). The warlord is presumably one of the Leaders.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-30, 11:43 AM
My understanding is that barbarian, druid, and bard, if not in the PHB, will be in the PHB2 (which will come out one year later). So no one really killed them and took their stuff. I wouldn't have minded if the barbarian had been rolled into the fighter, but I don't think it will be the case.

The Extinguisher
2007-09-30, 05:33 PM
That's kind of like being pissed that other people have leather seats in their cars, just because you don't like the feel of leather seats.

Actually, given that they are going to be releasing extra material with the computer books and stuff, it's me being pissed that people with leather seats in thier cars get an added stereo benifit.

ken-do-nim
2007-09-30, 07:09 PM
OK.

I really don't want to have to switch to fourth edition. From what I've seen and heard about it, it is corrupting everything that was good about 3.5, and is trying (and failing) to fix all those little quirks that our current edition has...

Yet, my gaming group... please note, the only one in the area who actually are willing to play with me, are all eager to play 4e. As the newest to DnD of them, I like 3.5 a lot, yet for them it might be getting slightly stale.

So... am I the only one with 4e-phobia? How are you guys dealing...

And yes, all you critics out there, there have been other threads like this. I have merely decided to start my own.

This is the part of your initial post that no one has followed up on. Are you sure? I'm in Massachusetts, and I can find gamers for anything, including any edition of D&D. I've got a 3.5 group, a Classic group, an online 1E group, an online 3.5 group, board game nights ...

I may be one of the few who doesn't have strong feelings about 4E because I don't feel threatened by it. If it's good maybe I'll get into an online 4E game, but it won't threaten my 3.5 playing or 1E playing or whatever.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-30, 11:00 PM
There was a time when I saw all the whining about 4E and were curious as to what was so bad about it and how it was going to kill D&D and all this other stuff. I dug into its resources and the message boards and the discussions and all stuff of that kind. As someone said before, 2ED roughly came in with the world wide web so there are few traces remaining, but discussions continue. And most of all, today's people can tell you how they felt about 2ED at that time too.

So I made some research and I still didn't get it. 4E seemed like a fun change for the better continuing the good trend that the D&D has taken for several years now, and I couldn't figure out anything else except that it maybe came too soon (a few more years would have been better IMO). On the other hand, people kept whining about the death of D&D, parasitic leeching coompany and all that stuff. So why...? Heck, even those rumors about 4E were nowhere around the scale to incite such reactions.

Digging further and asking for the people's opinions of previous editions I realized one very strange but comforting fact. However as much it is a generalization do note that I don't mean "everyone" when saying it, but that is the gist of it:

Those same people whining today about death of D&D in face of "$"E have been whining for years and older even decades. They hate 3E, depise 3.5, think that 2E was a parasitic expansion which ruined their enjoyment and that WotC is an evil conglomerate that destroyed "their" game. And still they play it, and still they whine, even about 4E which is just a glimpse at this point but they know that it will further ruin them.

Note again, not everyone and there are people with good reasons and good explanations that are longer than "it sucks". But that is my opinion of the current state of opposition. Saying that "it sucks" makes you appear powerful and smart (oooh I said it sucks, it must be because my genius is unparalleled) and I can completely understand the reasons. Everyone likes to be respected, and bullying something you see in front of others is the primal way of gaining respect.
Now maybe I'm too optimistic or something, but I can't understand why someone would live years and years and more of such fear and hatred like some "past man" from Turgenev's novels. Geez, that must make them respected because the entire company of a thousand people sucks compared to them.
And actually, no one is denying (you) the right to dislike 4E; I acknowledge that it is mentality that makes up the final touch to the game and that you can be perfectly happy in any edition, including the first one, so I never spit on previous editions. Be so kind and extend the same courtesy to us who see something good in 4E. Thankee.

An interesting generalization, and possibly with a bit of truth there even.

My own experience is merely anecdotal. I've played from 1e to 3.5e. I thought 2e was great, and I even welcome 3e. 3.5e came a bit sooner that I'd like, but the changes made sense so I've enjoyed the game still.

There's a lot of announced changes of 4e that seem to me to be changing the game to the core. Maybe they are for the better, I can't say, but it will no longer be close to the game I played 20-some years ago with my buddies. As someone said, it'll still be a Fantasy RPG (and, I might add, it might even be a well-done FRPG), but it really won't be Dungeons & Dragons (other than, I will add, in name.)

Kiero
2007-10-01, 04:04 AM
I'm not fussed about this so-called 4th Ed. From what I've read so far, it isn't going to be D&D, but rather a new fantasy role playing system.

Arguably so was the change from 2nd to 3rd edition. Plus ca change...

John_D
2007-10-01, 04:46 AM
Actually, given that they are going to be releasing extra material with the computer books and stuff, it's me being pissed that people with leather seats in thier cars get an added stereo benifit.

Because web enhancements are a completely new development, not seen before 4th edition. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/wex)

Lycurgus
2007-10-01, 05:51 AM
From what I've seen, things are going more and more toward a table-top version of a computer game. Personally, I'm not good with that. They are cutting down on the amount of core classes? Did someone at WotC actually realize they had gotten to 400 20 level classes, half of which are redundant? Same thing with races. I like that you can make practically any species playable, but you don't need to change those in the core. Even if they've established another 30 in the various splat books as pseudo-core races. Also there seems to be a definite trend toward homogenization of the campaign settings. They already crippled Dragonlance and murdered Planescape, Dark Sun, and Ravenloft. Now they are going to butcher Forgotten Realms and possibly Eberron. Do you really want Toril to be the next Oerth? I don't. You guys go on if you want, I'll stick with 3.5.

ken-do-nim
2007-10-01, 09:06 AM
They are cutting down on the amount of core classes? Did someone at WotC actually realize they had gotten to 400 20 level classes, half of which are redundant?

Yeah, I laughed when Complete Divine came out and there was the Favored Soul and the Divine Champion prestige class together in the same book. They are the same thing flavor-wise, just one does it in 20 and the other in 10. And both share flavor with paladins, who in turn shares flavor with clerics. "I kick butt as a chosen one of my deity" - yup I get it. Now there's this Complete Champion book that I refuse to buy; could be more classes in there just like these.

I'm ecstatic about 4E if it means they are cutting down the need for so many classes & prestige classes. If the base classes are more flexible, the splat books will be full of new powers you can take for the class you already have and not force you down a new path. Take monk for instance. I realized when my character turned about 12th level or so that I better enchant my unarmed strikes or I'd fall hopelessly behind. Oh great, there's a kensai class. But it's a different class. This means, for instance, that if I take levels of kensai, my spell resistance won't increase, nor the dc for my quivering palm, etc. Instead, I should be able to stay monk and take the alternate kensai powers. So if 4E is like that, I'm hooked.

horseboy
2007-10-01, 11:12 AM
They already crippled Dragonlance and murdered Planescape, Dark Sun, and Ravenloft.
You left out Spelljammer. :smallwink:

psychoticbarber
2007-10-01, 12:11 PM
They are cutting down on the amount of core classes? Did someone at WotC actually realize they had gotten to 400 20 level classes, half of which are redundant? Same thing with races. I like that you can make practically any species playable, but you don't need to change those in the core.

Even when some of those races are redundant?

"I'd like to be a half elf. All of the elven blood, none of the good stuff. And I've got human in me too, but none of their good stuff either."

I never really liked the half-elf, but that's besides the point. I've heard the "they're changing D&d into something that isn't D&D anymore!" argument before, and I don't quite buy it.

First point: Making Player Races separate from monster races.
I don't see this as an issue. At all. I remember a time (and don't go calling me a grognard, I'm only 20) when PCs fought monsters. The PCs were almost never the monsters! If I wanted to be a monster (and sometimes I do), I'd play Vampire the Masquerade (and I have).

Second point: Cosmology
There may be an argument here, but I was never much of a fan of the exceedingly complex cosmology (I'd really rather not have to memorize it, thanks), and basically ignored it and made up my own stuff.

Third Point: zOMG! WotC is ripping me off for money!
This..well...this might very well be true too, but it's not just WotC that does this. I bough a textbook for my Introduction to Canadian Politics class in first term last year. By the end of first term, when I went to sell it back to the bookstore for about half the price, it was already and out of date edition and they wouldn't buy it.

Fourth edition can't bother me yet because I haven't seen it. I think that for playability and ease of use it was a huge step up from Adv. Second Edition (which I've played), and 3.5 was a step up from 3.0, so I don't see any evidence to suggest that 4.0 is going to be worse than 3.5, at least for me. Really, though, these "teasers" we've been getting don't tell us too much about the shape of the mechanics or the true nature of the game. We'll have to wait until May for that, I think.

Skibybadoowap
2007-10-01, 12:54 PM
I actually like most of the changes they are making in 4th edition.
Talent Trees
+6 Wands

For the most complete list I've found, check out dungeons and dragons 4th edition rumors list (http://dnd4.com/?page_id=33).

Personally I can't wait.

Crow
2007-10-01, 01:02 PM
I'll be keeping an eye on the CharOp boards after the release to see how balanced the system is.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-01, 01:39 PM
Even when some of those races are redundant?

"I'd like to be a half elf. All of the elven blood, none of the good stuff. And I've got human in me too, but none of their good stuff either."

I never really liked the half-elf, but that's besides the point. I've heard the "they're changing D&d into something that isn't D&D anymore!" argument before, and I don't quite buy it.

...

Fourth edition can't bother me yet because I haven't seen it. I think that for playability and ease of use it was a huge step up from Adv. Second Edition (which I've played), and 3.5 was a step up from 3.0, so I don't see any evidence to suggest that 4.0 is going to be worse than 3.5, at least for me. Really, though, these "teasers" we've been getting don't tell us too much about the shape of the mechanics or the true nature of the game. We'll have to wait until May for that, I think.

On the same hand, the people who say "people made the same complaints about 2e, 3e, and 3.5e" doesn't hold water with me either. New editions will always create waves, but that doesn't invalidate concerns for a new edition.

To take another example, let's take a different gaming system altogether: White Wolf's WoD. Vampire: The Masquerade went through three editions. Granted, Second edition was sorely needed (as I recall well, having one of the first-print, first edition books which had pages fall out after much use). The "new edition", Vampire: The Requiem wasn't heralded as 4e for Vampire, but it was still a new edition with many sweeping changes to both world and social structure rules. And many people I know refuse to play the new WoD. The group I play with took a look at the new rules and decided it wasn't for them.

This isn't to say that Requiem is a bad game. Nor am I asserting that 4e will suck. It most likely won't. But I see a lot of changes coming up that are ones that I don't care to see changed. Basically, just what the changes are and if whether I see them as too much or not will determine how much I proceed with 4e, or whether I and my friends stick with 3.5e.

Because heck, we're in our 20s and 30s and have the same group we've had for ages. Between the lot of us we have many books we can use for 3.5e. Considering the vast amounts of information we're given, it's not like we're going to be hurting for material at all. I could run several adventures from bargain bins of 3.5e and 3e indie modules, use the myriad of Dungeon magazines I own, or even make up my own stuff without any sense of loss.

I understand plenty look forward to the new system. And because opinions vary, I know some of the changes I dread others look forward to seeing. I still like to think that I can express the concerns I have, and the overall feeling that the game I knew will soon be long gone in the official market.

Mike_G
2007-10-01, 03:53 PM
I actually like most of the changes they are making in 4th edition.
Talent Trees
+6 Wands

For the most complete list I've found, check out dungeons and dragons 4th edition rumors list (http://dnd4.com/?page_id=33).

Personally I can't wait.

Most of what I saw at this link looks really good to me.

I remain cautiously optimistic.

Lyinginbedmon
2007-10-01, 04:54 PM
Dear heck, it reminds me horribly of World of Warcraft.

I don't mind WoW, I play WoW, but if I want to play WoW, I'll play WoW, not D&D.