So..we have crunch - how do you feel about 4e now?

[Mr. Friendly]

The AICN review, Mike Shea's blog, and all* the various people who have talked about 4e (after playing it) seem to give generally positive commentary, if not outright showering praise upon the system.

Me, I'm still a bit nervous. I find myself having horribly wild swings back and forth between love and hate for all I have seen. Can this *really* be as good as it seems?

I thought after getting such a dose of crunchy goodness, I would have made up my mind fully. I just.. I don't know. It feels like, as an old naval collegue of mine is fond of saying... "It's a trap!"

So where is everyone else? I know a lot were on the fence. What about those who were comitted? Any change, for or against? What about those who were opposed to begin with? Any change, for or against?

*: all = all the people's reviews I have read so far. Just clarifying.

[Tyger]

While the overwhelming "gush" factor is making me leery of accepting a lot of these high praises at face value, I do find that I really like most of what I am seeing crunch wise.

The ideals behind the ToB and the ToM being incorporated into base classes, the strengthening of melee classes overall, and the layout (actual alphabetical combat rules??? DOn't tease me!) all give me high hopes for it.

All that said, I am still holding off on judgement until I actually see the full rules, not just a cheat sheet designed to give a peak and not lay out any of the advancement systems, or higher level play.

All in all, I am cautiously optimistic, but that has been my stance on it all along.

[Matthew]

It looks okay to me, as these things go. I don't like the increased number of Hit Points, the Healing surges or the 6 Hour Rests that fully restore all capabilities, but many people have been clamouring for that sort of thing for years, so I can hardly complain. The changes don't look to have been as violent as was expected, but it is recognisably another move further from what went before with BD&D, AD&D and D20.

Still, it's possible that I might prefer this to D20, but that's not necessarily saying much.

[Indon]

The system has a lot of features I really like, and a lot I really dislike.

I no longer measure my feelings towards 4'th edition on a Like-Hate continuum, as a result. Instead, this is my continuum:

Difficulty and scope of neccessary houseruling --- vs --- Enjoyable qualities and potential of system.

So, on the one hand, it looks like it's shaping up to be a solid system in every way except that it will be painfully one-dimensional and boring in a mechanics perspective, which may well require more or less completely rewriting the system to fix.

On the other hand, because it will be so ridiculously simple, it should be relatively easy to mod in variant rules to do at least part of that job.

All in all, the jury's very much out on if all the houseruling will be worth it or not, or precisely what and how much I'll end up houseruling.

[Muyten]

Well I'm still on the "ME WANT!"-side of the fence.
Most of what I've seen is pretty much like I exspected.
Not all of it may be to a degree I had hoped for (such as reduction in die-rolling) but overall I'm pretty happy.

There are still some mechanics I'm not quite sure about such as the diplomatic encounter system but I'll wait and see.

[Morty]

It doesn't look as bad as the WoTC material so far indicated. There are still things I find just plainly bad, though. But I'm cerainly more optimistic than I were about a month ago.

[kingpain]

Not liked but a little bit here and there. Like death and dying. So, I'll save my cash and houserule the new bleeding system.

[Renegade Paladin]

It feels like, as an old naval collegue of mine is fond of saying... "It's a trap!"

It's a tarp!

Sorry, had to. Anyway, if it feels like a trap, that's because it is. There's some good stuff in there, but most of the changes feel arbitrary. Rules should never be arbitrary, whether they're the rules of a game or the laws of the land.

[Lord Tataraus]

For awhile I have been on the fence, teetering on the edge. However, with my group saying they want to try it out, I've decided I'll get the core books and make a hybrid system, converting my 3.5 stuff to 3.75 and the 4th stuff to 3.75

I will end up homebrew a lot anyway since that's what I do in my free time now. And considering I get a minimum 42% discount with amazon.com's pre-order (and free shipping), I'm paying for 1 1/2 books, not a bad deal.

[RTGoodman]

I've been behind 4E since it was announced (basically), and I still feel that way. The crunch we've been given, though I didn't like some of it, still backs up my feelings that I think the system will be more fun (for me at least), if not better. Of course, I've spent a lot of time and money of 3.5, so I won't leave it behind, but I'm almost definitely switching over to (the non-electronic version of) 4E when it comes out.

[Human Paragon 3]

It's a tarp!

Sorry, had to. Anyway, if it feels like a trap, that's because it is. There's some good stuff in there, but most of the changes feel arbitrary. Rules should never be arbitrary, whether they're the rules of a game or the laws of the land.

Which rules feel arbitrary? This isn't a confrontation, I'm just curious about which ones you mean.

[The_Werebear]

I'm still worried. The crunch was never what I feared, but the fluff. I am still very hesitant about Tieflings and Dragonborn as primary races.

Though, the removal of gnomes is something I have always been behind.

[AKA_Bait]

I'm still giving it a solid 'meh'. I'm not thrilled about some of the mechanics (pretty much the ones that Matthew mentioned) and if Worlds and Monsters is any indication I'm going to loathe the fluff.

There are some things I like, and depending upon how the system runs and if advancment works smoothly, I might spend the time cutting out and rewriting the huge swaths of fluff I may need to. I'm going to need to see the system in full before I really know I suspect.

[ShadowSiege]

I'm still firmly committed to my Amazon preorder ($68 for all three books, ~1/3 less than retail. Hail Amazon!), having been swayed early on. There are a lot of things in 3.x that I dislike, and it seems as though they'll be fixing a lot of them with 4e. Like gnomes.

I'm still not sure about dragonborn and tieflings, though I'm not vehemently opposed to them, more "wait and see, maybe they'll get played, maybe not."

[Telonius]

I think I'm in the opposite position of Werebear. WotC can put out whatever fluff they want, and I'll continue to ignore it when it doesn't suit the needs of the campaign. It's relatively easy to repaint a car, I was more concerned that they were going to butcher the engine.

I'm also cautiously optimistic. I like some of what I'm seeing. But I'll wait to see what happens when this shiney new system gets thrown to an army of 1 million nerds who are just waiting to tear it to shreds with full ranks in munchkinry.

[Rutee]

I think I'm in the opposite position of Werebear. WotC can put out whatever fluff they want, and I'll continue to ignore it when it doesn't suit the needs of the campaign. It's relatively easy to repaint a car, I was more concerned that they were going to butcher the engine.

Pretty much my thought on that matter.

I actually feel literally no different; Too much of the crunch feels like it's too isolated to really judge on, though it appears to back up their statements on where 4e was going to go mechanically.

[[FLUX]]

I'll happily not buy the new edition, just like I didn't buy the old editions except in short bursts. Not because I don't like it, but because I'm cheap. I'm sure some enterprising pirate will .pdf it within a few weeks if it being released.

Even if the mechanics suck in the new edition, news flash: the 3.5 ones aren't great shakes either (Reference any OOTS strip where they make fun of technicalities in the casting system, the spiked chain cheese build, or puns on Roy's Great Cleavage). Though I do understand the "But I already know these rules" argument.

Either way, I have a related question: there are at least two responses in this thread in the vein of "I'm worried about the new edition". Are you actually worried about them releasing a new edition, like, physically worried? Or is it just a word choice thing, that I'm reading too much into?

P.S.: In before "OMG It's WoW the Tabletop kill it with fire!".

[Snadgeros]

While certain improvements are welcome (balance/skills/etc.), character generation looks like crap. From what I'm seeing, there's not much customization, merely choosing from pre-made paths. While the simplicity is user-friendly, it doesn't offer enough room for me to make the billion and a half interesting character ideas I have. Making interesting and fun-to-play characters is my favorite part of DnD, and 4E just doesn't seem to have that.

[KIDS]

I've been appreciative of 4E before, and after this my opinion is reinforced in that direction: likes it, quite a lot. And I enjoy this little "gushing" among tons of dreary negativity, it's a nice change. As I said before, D&D is one of rare topics where you will be actively flamed just for being optimistic. Eh, whatever

Of course it could come out and I could read it and decide that it was all trash and lies, but the chances are slim.
+ -> +- -> +++

[Xefas]

Everything I've seen about the mechanics I like.

A lot of the fluff I don't care about. I'm not getting rid of my Great Wheel, because I really super like it. I'll probably make Eladrin "High Elves" and Elves "Wood Elves" and that'll be that. Dragonborn will become the Kobold's big brother (in the vein of Goblins and Hobgoblins most likely), and Tielfings will have the same fluff as they did in 3rd edition.

Not exactly difficult to change...

Now I just wanna see the grapple, bullrush, disarm, sunder, trip, and overrun rules.

But, overall, I'm solidly sold on picking up the core books unless something horrendous and terrible comes to light before the release.

[Behold_the_Void]

I'll likely try to browse the books before I buy them, but I have some book store gift cards sitting in my wallet with 4e's name on it, and have had them since Christmas.

[SamTheCleric]

I just went up to pay my local shopkeep for my preorder... I was on the fence... Now I'm volunteering to DM a campaign for the local group.

Oh, and I've decided on Ranger for my Living FR character.

(I also picked up D&D Inn-Fighting. Looks amusing)

[Deepblue706]

After reading these sheets, I'm feeling a bit nervous too, Mr. Friendly.

I *want* to believe 4ed will turn out great. Still, though, I really don't know what to make of it all.

[Trog]

Still positive. They seemed to have lived up to their crunch improvement promises with what has been leaked so far. I'm looking forward to picking up the 3 core books as soon as I can.

Some of the fluff isn't exactly my favorite flavor of fluff but I'm open to change. Some of the other DnD settings were getting kind of tired long, long ago anyway. Though I AM glad they revamped their description of halflings from their earlier release. Much better now.

All in all I'm still buying it.

[Spiryt]

I just wanted to say, that, while some stuff (Hunters Quarry) looks quite promising (I hope that it would be well developed), chalenges, especialy Divine Chalenge couldn't be much more stupid.

[Starbuck_II]

I just wanted to say, that, while some stuff (Hunters Quarry) looks quite promising (I hope that it would be well developed), chalenges, especialy Divine Chalenge couldn't be much more stupid.

You do know that that was a Arcane spell in 3.5 called Mindless Rage (divine one is weaker though it seems, doesn't force them).

[Rachel Lorelei]

I'm still worried. The crunch was never what I feared, but the fluff. I am still very hesitant about Tieflings and Dragonborn as primary races.

Though, the removal of gnomes is something I have always been behind.

Why so hesitant? People have been trying to play dragon-like characters, even if they have to cripple themselves to do it (half-dragon) for ages. It's a step up from "elves, dwarves, halflings. (Also, gnomes.)" I think.

And, yes. Stupid gnomes.

Sorry, had to. Anyway, if it feels like a trap, that's because it is. There's some good stuff in there, but most of the changes feel arbitrary. Rules should never be arbitrary, whether they're the rules of a game or the laws of the land.

How are they arbitrary? They all seem to be designed to make the game play and feel a certain way. That's not arbitrary.

So, on the one hand, it looks like it's shaping up to be a solid system in every way except that it will be painfully one-dimensional and boring in a mechanics perspective, which may well require more or less completely rewriting the system to fix.

Buh? The mechanics we've seen so far don't seem one-dimensional or boring to me. Compare those first-level characters with 3.5 core-only first-level characters.

It looks okay to me, as these things go. I don't like the increased number of Hit Points, the Healing surges or the 6 Hour Rests that fully restore all capabilities, but many people have been clamouring for that sort of thing for years, so I can hardly complain. The changes don't look to have been as violent as was expected, but it is recognisably another move further from what went before with BD&D, AD&D and D20.

Still, it's possible that I might prefer this to D20, but that's not necessarily saying much.

If you actually like that at first level, you can easily go down in one shot, and the roll of the die is vastly more important than any bonuses you might have...

Burn the witch!

[Spiryt]

You do know that that was a Arcane spell in 3.5 called Mindless Rage (divine one is weaker though it seems, doesn't force them).

The thing is that we are discussing crunch, yes... The crunch of chalenges is perfectly okay - for a spell, (although rather sofisticated though), not so much for some paladin abilitty. That just screams "agro" to me.

[Cybren]

I like the ability to go down in one shot at any level!

[Rachel Lorelei]

The thing is that we are discussing crunch, yes... The crunch of chalenges is perfectly okay - for a spell, (although rather sofisticated though), not so much for some paladin abilitty. That just screams "agro" to me.

...so it's okay for an arcane spell, but not okay for a divine power-fuelled supernatural ability. It's "aggro!" when it's a divine ability, but it's, what, "control" when it's an arcane ability.

...
...
...