I consider myself a strong supporter of the local and internet gaming community. In addition to D&D (1st & 3.5 editions), I also enjoy other RPGs, most recently Call of Cthulu and OG: Unearthed Edition. I want to support D&D...but...
Now, I find myself confused by what WotC is doing to my game. Yeah- it's mine; for all of the blood (stupid papercuts), sweat and spilled Coca-cola lost on the gaming table, there is a Lockean application of ownership to Dungeons and Dragons. Easpecially as a DM, I want to know what is happening! I don't have the time to read the (too?) many threads about all of the rules changes, what so-and-so designed said about the game on podcast xyz, etc. I hope to get the general (and sometimes specific, albeit limited) low-down on what my game will become in a short few months. First, let me take a stab at it (rolls...d20+2):
**********----------
There will be 3 core books, like always. I will have to $ub$cribe to an online service to get updates that weren't origionally published, but which may be released as a supplimental book later, too.
Some classes, like the druid and sorcerer, lay dormant in an as-of-yet undisclosed rules suppliment. Add the warlock as a "base" class. Add a leader class, too, that seems to take away the "role" playing opportunitites and make D&D classes very Marxist- know your role!
Races matter, maybe more than classes. As a character advances, new things about how well they could do stuff becomes known to them, making races like a profession. The gnome bites it (for now), but we get dragon-born and tieflings out of the gate in 4E.
If I play WoW, I will like D&D4, because it's been pigeon-holed into this line of thinking, with regards to class roles, and some magic stuff. I don't even know where to begin asking magical questions. I'm guessing most elves are likely to be wizards, etc. Do wizards have spell-books, or PDAs? :)
Somehow, the whole game can be played using a computer now, instead of (just) paper and pencil. Losing Dungeon and Dragon magazines to online subsriptions paved the way for this several months ago. I could have a cool digital miniature for my character though, but I don't know how I'd get it (buy the PHB?).
So, when I cross-reference my Forgotten Realms paperback books into D&D4, is Cyric really:
a) a thief
b) a guy who becomes vaulted into godhood
c) a feared yet crazy diety of at least a couple of titles, or
d) Cyric? He doesn't exist in this 4.0 version of D&D reality...yet...he'll be available in edition 4.1.9.2
WotC seems to be proving 1) less than stellar customer service for all of the questions 2) a game aimed at young adults and/or computer saavy computer users 3) if it ain't broke, fix it, as evienced by a 5 year time table release for D&D5.
I am sorry if I seem cynical. There appears to be way too many changes for this new edition to seem like the game my group knows. I welcome any helpful feedback about these changes.
You may want to visit the EN World news page for the best summary of all the changes.
The game will be much different. Many are saying that the game will be faster and more intuitive.
However, the many options that are available in 3.5 will not be available for a couple of years.
You may want to re-evaluate in 2010. ;)
You may want to visit the EN World news page for the best summary of all the changes.
The game will be much different. Many are saying that the game will be faster and more intuitive.
However, the many options that are available in 3.5 will not be available for a couple of years.
You may want to re-evaluate in 2010. ;)
To the OP, the most polarizing change, I think, is not a specific one, but one of tone and intent:
3E leaned towards Simulation play, as per the WotC designers. It wasn't a simulation, by any means, but was a bit on that side of the spectrum with the focus on unified rules for monster design and rules for, well, a whole lot of stuff.
4E is being taken to the other side of the spectrum, though I don't know how far. It's being made more gamist, deliberately, and strict simulation is not a focus anymore.
They are saying that it will still do a lot of different things (the game, that is) and be usable by all but it is gamistcentric, from the center, as 3E was simulcentric from the center. Yes, I made those up. A theme going on at the moment is that they've put back in some of the fun that 3E stole from previous editions (such as monster design) and tried to expand or keep the fun from 3E.
I'm very firmly in the 4E camp, but don't begrudge anyone not feeling the same, so don't hold it against me. :) Those points above are the primary difference between the systems, I think. For details on actual rules that we know of, I would go the ENWorld.org site since the rules are compiled there as we discover them. DaveMage linked it above.
There will be 3 core books, like always. I will have to $ub$cribe to an online service to get updates that weren't origionally published, but which may be released as a supplimental book later, too.
If you mean, "will I have to pay for access to additional material?" then yes, you will, exactly like you had to have a subscription to Dragon or buy a splatbook for 3.5.
If you mean, "will I have to subscribe online?", no, you will not. All errata will be publicly released.
Some classes, like the druid and sorcerer, lay dormant in an as-of-yet undisclosed rules suppliment. Add the warlock as a "base" class. Add a leader class, too, that seems to take away the "role" playing opportunitites and make D&D classes very Marxist- know your role!
With the changes to magic, the 3.5 sorcerer is redundant; they're rethinking the basic idea of the class, and it's a good idea to postpone that release for a while. The druid is going to end up in a supplement with the barbarian (and a new "primal" power source). It was probably a mistake to drop the bard as a "leader" in favor of the warlord, but it appears they're giving each individual class a lot more attention than the first PHB did, and they clearly felt they'd rather have more room to deal with 8 classes than less room to deal with 12.
As for the "leader", one of the problems they identified with 3.5 was how easy it was for some classes to overwhelm others. It's not particularly fun to play a 15th level fighter, when the 15th level cleric can do everything you can, better than you can, and gets buckets of spells on top of it. Rather than just make the cleric worse, they structured the game around some basic "roles" that each class fulfills. There's no hard rule that a class has to follow its "role" (and there's also going to be the ability to pick up some abilities from other classes, to further blur the distinction) but knowing a cleric has the leader role tells you they're intended to buff and support other party members, and if you want to do something different you going to have to put some extra effort into it.
Races matter, maybe more than classes. As a character advances, new things about how well they could do stuff becomes known to them, making races like a profession. The gnome bites it (for now), but we get dragon-born and tieflings out of the gate in 4E.
Races matter, but not nearly as much as classes. It's true you'll get access to additional racial abilities as you level up.
The gnome is completely and officially playable out of the Monster Manual. What you won't have is the same selection of racial abilities that you'll have for the elf or dwarf. That is likely to be released online fairly shortly after the release of 4e, and will get published in a hardcover supplement in 2009. Probably the next version of the Player's Handbook.
If I play WoW, I will like D&D4, because it's been pigeon-holed into this line of thinking, with regards to class roles, and some magic stuff.
It's hardly been pigeon-holed into WoW. There are some elements that borrow broadly from WoW, but the game system borrows liberally from a number of different games, most obviously Magic: the Gathering, Earthdawn, and earlier editions of D&D. A previous playtest of the game borrowed a mechanic from Yahtzee.
More to the point, if 4e is a good game, it doesn't matter what they borrowed. If it's a bad game, it doesn't matter what they borrowed. It can and should be judged on its own merits.
I don't even know where to begin asking magical questions. I'm guessing most elves are likely to be wizards, etc. Do wizards have spell-books, or PDAs?
Spells can now be cast either once per day, once per encounter, or at will. For players who hated tracking what spells they had memorized or having to pull out a crossbow at 2nd level, that's a good thing. For people who loved tracking what spells they had memorized or love the tradition of wizards forgetting spells as they cast them, that's a bad thing. There does seem to be some flexibility in the spells you prepare for the day, and a spellbook will still be used. You will no longer have to decide between preparing Knock or Scorching Ray, however.
Somehow, the whole game can be played using a computer now, instead of (just) paper and pencil. Losing Dungeon and Dragon magazines to online subsriptions paved the way for this several months ago. I could have a cool digital miniature for my character though, but I don't know how I'd get it (buy the PHB?).
They are creating online tools to help people play online. That will not obviate the need for a human to be the gamemaster and run the game. It's intended for groups who can no longer gather together, so they can keep playing rather than break up. We'll see if it proves popular or not.
So, when I cross-reference my Forgotten Realms paperback books into D&D4, is Cyric really:
a) a thief
b) a guy who becomes vaulted into godhood
c) a feared yet crazy diety of at least a couple of titles, or
d) Cyric? He doesn't exist in this 4.0 version of D&D reality...yet...he'll be available in edition 4.1.9.2
The fluff changes have probably generated the most criticism. Indications are that the Spellplague (the shift from 3e to 4e for the Realms) will be as controversial as the Time of Troubles.
WotC seems to be proving 1) less than stellar customer service for all of the questions 2) a game aimed at young adults and/or computer saavy computer users 3) if it ain't broke, fix it, as evienced by a 5 year time table release for D&D5.
I'd be curious where you found your "5 year time table release for D&D5". That said, there are a number of industry professionals who have spoken out very positively about 4e. The system seems to have been simplified without being dumbed-down. I certainly won't argue with your opinion of WotC, at least with regards to their marketing.
I am sorry if I seem cynical. There appears to be way too many changes for this new edition to seem like the game my group knows. I welcome any helpful feedback about these changes.
No need to apologize. The only thing the public's really seen of 4e is the combat system, so there's really not enough to tell if its actually going to be a great RPG. The combat system was awfully fun, though.
3E leaned towards Simulation play, as per the WotC designers ... 4E is being taken to the other side of the spectrum, though I don't know how far. It's being made more gamist, deliberately, and strict simulation is not a focus anymore.
This is a really good point. Each edition is going to appeal to different people, for different reasons. I expect that a lot of people are going to like both, and I suspect when the dust settles more people are going to prefer 4e to 3e. But that's not to say 4e is therefore a better system, or that there aren't some campaigns or gaming styles that are better suited for 3e. That should be obvious.
Thanks, everyone, for very well thought out and informative replies. I feared the backlash of anti-anti-4e, or sugar-sweet attempts to convince me that 4e is good-good. I'll check-out the EN World posting later tonight.
Oh, I I used the 5 year restructure based on something I read here, that seemed to be from a credited source from a WotC response.
This summarizes MY worries over 4E:
Personally, I like the roleplaying aspect of RPGs. Weird, huh? Therefore the system that better enables me to quantify the people I'm bringing to life will win my heart. To a certain extent, simulation seems a better candidate for this than a miniatures game. For an extreme example, at the gamist extreme there lies chess, which I love, but I don't talk in funny voices and create relationships with my pawns, know what I mean? Although that might be why those old guys at the park are having so much fun, who knows?
But, always curious, I'll wait and see what WotC does with 4E over the next few years before I decide.
The fluff changes have probably generated the most criticism. Indications are that the Spellplague (the shift from 3e to 4e for the Realms) will be as controversial as the Time of Troubles.
The Time of Troubles didn't kill off almost every major NPC from every major author. Trash the planet and then jump a hundred years in the future so we don't have to deal with all that pesky clean up, is a pretty weak @#$%ing move! I know that 'fluff" doesn't matter to some people, but for others, it's the reason we play the game.
|
The fluff changes have probably generated the most criticism. Indications are that the Spellplague (the shift from 3e to 4e for the Realms) will be as controversial as the Time of Troubles.The Time of Troubles didn't kill off almost every major NPC from every major author. Trash the planet and then jump a hundred years in the future so we don't have to deal with all that pesky clean up, is a pretty weak @#$%ing move! I know that 'fluff" doesn't matter to some people, but for others, it's the reason we play the game.
Exactly, the Time of Troubles resulted in some minor changes to the FR pantheon and no more assassain class (because Bhaal was dead, but mainly because the class didn't exist in 2nd edition). We also had wild and dead magic zones. These things were minor and inconsequential compared to the horrific changes being thrust upon the Realms to make them conform to 4E's mechanics and "points of light" paradigm. In short, after the Time of Troubles, the Forgotten Realms were still the same old Realms. It didn't turn into "Mad Max Beyond Waterdeep" overnight.
|
|
I consider myself a strong supporter of the local and internet gaming community. In addition to D&D (1st & 3.5 editions), I also enjoy other RPGs, most recently Call of Cthulu and OG: Unearthed Edition. I want to support D&D...but...
Now, I find myself confused by what WotC is doing to my game. Yeah- it's mine; for all of the blood (stupid papercuts), sweat and spilled Coca-cola lost on the gaming table, there is a Lockean application of ownership to Dungeons and Dragons. Easpecially as a DM, I want to know what is happening! I don't have the time to read the (too?) many threads about all of the rules changes, what so-and-so designed said about the game on podcast xyz, etc. I hope to get the general (and sometimes specific, albeit limited) low-down on what my game will become in a short few months. First, let me take a stab at it (rolls...d20+2):
**********----------
There will be 3 core books, like always. I will have to $ub$cribe to an online service to get updates that weren't origionally published, but which may be released as a supplimental book later, too.Some classes, like the druid and sorcerer, lay dormant in an as-of-yet undisclosed rules suppliment. Add the warlock as a "base" class. Add a leader class, too, that seems to take away the "role" playing opportunitites and make D&D classes very Marxist- know your role!
Races matter, maybe more than classes. As a character advances, new things about how well they could do stuff becomes known to them, making races like a profession. The gnome bites it (for now), but we get dragon-born and tieflings out of the gate in 4E.
If I play WoW, I will like D&D4, because it's been pigeon-holed into this line of thinking, with regards to class roles, and some magic stuff. I don't even know where to begin asking magical questions. I'm guessing most elves are likely to be wizards, etc. Do wizards have spell-books, or PDAs? :)
Somehow, the whole game can be played using a computer now, instead of (just) paper and pencil. Losing Dungeon...
To sum up 4E in a nutshell. It seems that 4E is being turned into a simplified, extremely minis-centric tactical wargame (It might even be appropriate to call it a collectible minis game). The reason for this is that minis make a lot more money than the RPG books. It might be a fun game that is quicker and easier to play than older editions of D&D. Of course, I believe that the more you like older editions, the less 4E will "feel" like D&D to you. Granted, these statements are a bit biased against 4E and WotC, in general, because it's hard to hold back the anger that has been built up from the death of the magazines and horrible, insulting PR we have been subjected to since August. 3.0 and 3.5 have more simulationist RPG rules, while 4.0 have more CMG gamist rules. Pick your game based on which of these appeal to your play preferences.
...If I play WoW, I will like D&D4, because it's been pigeon-holed into this line of thinking, with regards to class roles, and some magic stuff. I don't even know where to begin asking magical questions. (...)
I get the same feeling, that a Warcraft mentality has flooded 4E. Except that it'll depend on miniatures rather than total computer control.
I'm the first to admit, I like playing WoW. I play it far too much, in fact. But WoW has absolutely minimal roleplaying.
I played (all versions of) D&D for the roleplaying. Rarely did any of my player groups use miniatures, except for the infrequent "look guys - my character kinda looks like this mini I just painted!" kind of thing.
Certainly, others went the whole route of using minis with their D&D, but we almost never did. It was always about the roleplaying. Also gone (at least it seems to be) is something that went hand-in-hand with RP: deep customization of one's character. One wizard at lvl 3 could be quite different when compared to another at lvl 3, and the higher the level the more diverse the possibilities.
With 4E, it seems that such diversity has been sacrificed in the name of "balance" such that the WoW-like "tanks" "DPSers" and "main healers" are imported to D&D. Ultimately, it'll feel like WoW... so why not just play WoW if that's what you're after?
To me 4E, feels like Basic D&D (which I started with). And I mean that in a good way.
|
Many are saying that the game will be faster and more intuitive.
And to the contrary, I've read that the game moves no faster than 3.5 . . . and this is coming from people who played at D&D Experience.
As for it being a "simplified" game, I've also heard the contrary. Perhaps after everyone spends time relearning the game and its rules, it will prove simpler.
The question is whether people really want to spend the time and energy relearning the game rules when 3.5 doesn't seem broken. And honestly, IMO, if you find 3.5 slow, there are ways to speed it up with a few simple house rules, e.g., criticals instead of critical threats, damage includes 1/2 CL, means to refresh spells without resting for eight hours, condition tracks for damage, condensed skills, etc..
What occurs to me to be the issue is whether people still want to stay on the band wagon or not. A year ago (before the demise of Dragon and Dungeon), I would have probably felt compelled to move to 4e . . . mainly because of my loyalty to Paizo (and not WotC). Now, with Dragon and Dungeon "gone," I feel less compelled.
It also occurs to me that even if Paizo shifts, converting back to 3.5 shouldn't be too cumbersome.
|
Many are saying that the game will be faster and more intuitive.And to the contrary, I've read that the game moves no faster than 3.5 . . . and this is coming from people who played at D&D Experience.
I look at it this way - this was the first time people played it and it was as fast as 3.5 so that means as people ramp up and play more then it will become quicker.
If my gaming group goes 4e only, I just might hang my gaming hat up for good.
So far, from multiple reviews, it seems that the TOTAL time is the same for combat as in 3E, but many more rounds are being done in that timeframe. So, if an encounter used to take you 15 minutes for 4 rounds of combat, it might take you still 15 minutes but with 8 rounds of combat. With multiple monsters as the norm, it seems to create a dynamic atmosphere.
Whether this will agree with your playstyle or be something you're looking for in a game remains to be seen. It's going to come down to personal taste.
|
|
I am uncertain that the full game will be quicker; these were 'bare bones' rules pulled together (for first level characters, remember) to give a much called for basic demonstration to the waiting public.
Very true. I guess I would add that the play testers that have posted reviews have said it is faster so I am considering that as well.
|
I am uncertain that the full game will be quicker; these were 'bare bones' rules pulled together (for first level characters, remember) to give a much called for basic demonstration to the waiting public.
Very true. I guess I would add that the play testers that have posted reviews have said it is faster so I am considering that as well.
My recollection was of a report that the combat took no less time. And that it took something like 40 rounds for one combat. And that after people figured out what their characters could do, they singled out what seemed to be the best option and just did that over and over and over. Despite all the "options" available to them.
Any interesting-sounding reports that were supposed to be showcasing the new system actually seemed to come down to a DM who was weaving a fine tale, but not actually using or testing the rules.
Of the reports from D&DX that I've seen (and I obviously haven't seen them all) the reviews were kind of ... bleh.
Of the reports from D&DX that I've seen (and I obviously haven't seen them all) the reviews were kind of ... bleh.
I´m a 4e sceptic as well. But reading this, I thought: perhaps people give 4e so bad reviews because they are expecting too much from 4e, and get necessarily disappointed when it does not blow their socks off. DMs at game days can be of very mixed quality, even if one should expect the best DMs got chosen for the D&DX.
Stefan
Almost all the DDXP play experiences that I've read here, on EN World, and on RPG.Net (as well as all the live-bloggers)were positive. Even those with reservations regarding 4e at least said that they had "fun."
|
|
Any interesting-sounding reports that were supposed to be showcasing the new system actually seemed to come down to a DM who was weaving a fine tale, but not actually using or testing the rules.
To me, this is the true for every RPG ever written. The rules are always secondary to the GM's ability to engage the players. A bad GM can make the best rules run like crap, but a good GM can take rock/paper/scissors and make it the best RPG experience ever.
The rules are always secondary to the GM's ability to engage the players. A bad GM can make the best rules run like crap, but a good GM can take rock/paper/scissors and make it the best RPG experience ever.
Not quite true.
While it's true a good GM can make a bad game great, and a bad GM can make a great game bad, the system can certainly encourage one or the other.
I played Living Greyhawk up to the point where they announced they were killing it, and in LG you play a lot of pregenerated modules with a lot of GMs and a lot of players. One of the problems with 4e I've noticed is it requires a medium-high familiarity with the rules to run smoothly. In LG, you'd not infrequently play a playtest of a mod, and a week later have a copy handed to you five minutes before you were supposed to run it.
Having a system that forgives you rather than punishes you in these situations would be a godsend.
|
|
The rules are always secondary to the GM's ability to engage the players. A bad GM can make the best rules run like crap, but a good GM can take rock/paper/scissors and make it the best RPG experience ever.Not quite true.
While it's true a good GM can make a bad game great, and a bad GM can make a great game bad, the system can certainly encourage one or the other.
I played Living Greyhawk up to the point where they announced they were killing it, and in LG you play a lot of pregenerated modules with a lot of GMs and a lot of players. One of the problems with 4e I've noticed is it requires a medium-high familiarity with the rules to run smoothly. In LG, you'd not infrequently play a playtest of a mod, and a week later have a copy handed to you five minutes before you were supposed to run it.
Having a system that forgives you rather than punishes you in these situations would be a godsend.
True - had not considered that. I agree 100%.
[...]a good GM can take rock/paper/scissors and make it the best RPG experience ever.
[threadjack]As long as it not Vampire LARP using rock/paper/scissors, this is probably true...[/threadjack].
Stefan