First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

LOTR trivia aside I can see the point about making all PC races Medium creatures that would let you remove the rather elaborate weapon size rules from the core material.

They're still Small creatures.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Well, the art definitely makes them look more like kender and less like hobbits, and there is that huge bonus to fear saves.

Tolkien's hobbits were resistant to fear, it's just that they didn't see the sense in taking risks. They were essentially modelled on the romantic view of the "stout yeoman* farmer."

*only these days it would have to be yeoperson.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Tolkien's hobbits were resistant to fear, it's just that they didn't see the sense in taking risks. They were essentially modelled on the romantic view of the "stout yeoman* farmer."

*only these days it would have to be yeoperson.

I've only read the trilogy a few times, but my general impression of hobbits was that they were often afraid, but that they were often exceptionally committed to doing the right thing. Kender, on the other hand, are typically portrayed as almost suicidally immune to fear(or even sensible caution) of any sort. The flavor text in the seems to indicate a blend of the two archetypes, but most of the artwork and the game mechanical stats definitely seem to lean more toward Kender than Hobbit, IMO.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Well, having read it, I'm kind of mixed.

The rules are much more streamlined and simple, compared to 3/3.5. I don't know if it's organization or what, but it seems like it would be much simpler to play. The complexity of the system isn't in the rules, but in the powers the characters have, and since no character is going to have too many powers (I think they max out at something like 15, though I think wizards might have more, can't remember), then it seems like it would keep play simple enough. Last time I tried playing in a 3.5 campaign, we had two with a good amount of experience with 3.5, and me, who had once-through read the main books many months earlier, and I ended up being the one everyone had to look to for rules answers (Because I was the only one who could find the pages quickly). With this, though, almost all the rules (Mainly, "what do I roll against what, and what does it do?") are on the character sheet.

However, characters do seem much more like a collection of cooldown-powers than an actual person. It reminds me way too much of WoW PVE/raiding (For reference, that would be a bad thing). Start the fight, use these certain powers, then rest up and prepare for the next fight. The healing surges thing is weird; they're definately emphasizing that hitpoints are not just physical damage, but also morale and such, but the way it's handled and the results it causes is still pretty strange. And while I can see why they'd say you're fine after a 6-hour rest (Heroes in cinematic fiction are rarely impared by their wounds after they've had a bit of time to rest up and recover their energy, even though they're still technically badly hurt. See every single Die Hard for reference), it's still rather strange that a "normal" person could be nearly dead from a dragon's flame, but just fine several hours later. While the "save" system is very simple, it's also kind of disapointing, as there's no way to make the enduring effects more likely to last (It's either a fixed length, or has a slightly-better-than-50% chance of ending each turn. No variation).

I don't miss gnomes. Not at all. Hell, half the time we'd forget they're even an available race. Never seen a gnome PC, and the only gnome NPCs I've seen were annoying gits that made a good case for justifiable homicide ("It's a Good act to make sure no other being is ever inflicted with this horror, right?"). And having them gone is all the better if it lets us have Tieflings (One of my favorite race options, as I've always had a thing for infernal-like beings) and Dragonborn (Which is easily my new favorite, as I've always had even more of a thing for dragons and anything like them!). Granted, I'm not sure why they decided to make two different types of elves. Yes, I know, they're different, but still... Elves...

No major opinion on the change of classes. Considering the "paths" a class can take, and the limited number of ability choices, it seems you have a bit more flexibility inside your class (At least, if we take just the core books, instead of the feat- and prestige-class-bloat that 3.5 is now), but less flexibility outside your initial class. Characters are very much "this class" now, though they might be "this class, with a few features like this other class." Does keep things simple, and amusingly, reminds me of how GURPS:DF has cross-class lenses. While there are certain classes missing now, it doesn't seem like too big of a deal to me. They should be back with the later books, and the ones they have now cover enough territory for what the game seems to want to aim for.

The non-combat stuff is simple, of course. Though in some cases it comes across as game-ey and mechanical (Such as the non-combat resolution system for such things as conversations, giving set numbers of successes required and failures allowed, rather than a more natural flow of events). Plus the oddity that it costs exactly as much to make something (Anything!) yourself as it would be to buy it, and far more than you could possibly sell it for.

It's very much cinematic dungeon-fantasy, really. It's certainly different than earlier D&D versions, of course, but seeing as I didn't care much for earlier versions anyway, I'm not exactly put off by the differences. I personally prefer the more "realistic" (Or gritty) feel of power levels of the earlier D&D versions (Specifically 2nd edition, which was the first I played), while the series seems to have been marching steadily toward more and more explicitly cinematic tones. Some of the best campaigns back when I actually played the system were taking lowly peasant types and having them struggle and grow into full-blown heroes. 4e feels much more like fairly-acomplished and competent types (Who could quite possibly be deemed heroes already) who end up in far more epic situations.

Another limitation is that it seems less flexible outside of what it's aimed at. Making a new class would involve a lot more than in previous editions, for example.

If I were to do a cinematic dungeon fantasy game, I'd prefer to do it in GURPS. But with my solid dislike of D&D 3/3.5 (Stemming from a combination of factors, but most from having tried out several campaigns and always finding something that just worked wrong), I'd probably be more willing to play a 4e game than any other version, at this point. I'd say it's more limited in its scope (Or more focused, if I were being generous), but it seems like what little it does, it does better. But what little it does, doesn't often match what I'd like to do. So I guess overal, I like the rules slightly more, in general (Some plusses, some minuses), but the "theme" somewhat less.

Still... I have GURPS. Easier for me to make what I want with that. Sure, I could take D&D 4 and play a dragonborn fighter. Or I could take GURPS:DF and play a dragon-blooded (Or lizardman) knight. And if I wanted to make something new that isn't introduced already (A new "class," for example), it'd be much easier to do in GURPS.

[Sydney]

Originally Posted by Irish Wolf

Is there something wrong with houseruling? I think that if the PTB at WotC ever saw my copy of the DMG, all the pencil lines and marginal notations would make them blanch...

I can't say that I see a problem with removing Barbarian as a class, though. Like the Assassin before it (removed in v3.0), Barbarian isn't really so much a class as a way of life. You could be a barbaric ranger (or hunter), a shaman (think mage/druid multiclass), a barbaric saga-singing bard - it's more a background detail that should (if you're role-playing) affect how you view "civilized" peoples, than a class with its own abilities and weapon proficiencies. (Although if you want to be a barbaric warrior from the frozen North, you'd better have a darn good backstory explaining why you're an expert with nunchucks and compound longbows!)

The Assassin was removed in 2e and brought back as a Prestige Class for 3.0...But, I agree with your point.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Granted, I'm not sure why they decided to make two different types of elves. Yes, I know, they're different, but still... Elves...

Do they have pointed ears? There has to be some point to elves.

[Flyerfan1991]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Do they have pointed ears? There has to be some point to elves.

Yes, they're pointy.

--Mike L.

[Xenmas]

Just a side point. I've heard a lot of complaining about there being two types of elves on the WotC forums. I don't think any of them realize that in 2nd ed you had over a dozen different types of elves :P

I've glanced at the PDFs, but I'm not going to do any serious reading until my books get to me. I don't like reading on the computer screen. I can say that the format is none-to-friendly to character creation. I had to finally do a search to find the rules on "Basic Attack". I found myself flipping constantly between class, race, and character creation chapters (I almost renamed the file twice so I could have three copies open at a time). In the end, however, I got a pretty little Dragonborn Paladin.

After getting through the obtuse book (Which will become second nature after I make a few more characters), I found that I really like what I ended up with. When I play D&D (Which is rare), I almost always play Paladins. While I enjoy it, to make the character I want to Role Play, I end up behind everyone else who is Roll Playing. Even though I didn't take the best choices of God, feat, and powers, I feel like I have a character that will be productive even compared to players who do optimize their choices.

I also felt good that I wasn't strong armed into being human. Since 3.x (Which is sooo not my favorite version), I have felt little point to take a non-human race. The extra feat was critical to make any worth-while character, and the racial abilities were only worth while with races that enforced an ECL. Now I have a fire breathing paladin...How cool is that?

I'm a little let down with the skills system. The idea that I can only train in a skill (and receive the bonus) once is disheartening. Sure, you can improve skills with feats, but I'm still stuck in the "Don't waste the precious feats" mindset.

The DMG is going to be my next task (As I will be the DM when I get the books). Again, I'm not giving a thorough read over until I have pen and ink in my hands, but I should be able to get a feel of things from the PDF.

[Warlockco]

I think the biggest issue with the changes to Elves in 4E is that the Eladrin is a "new race" as opposed to being X Elf.

I personally had no real issues with the dozen or so Elven races that were out at one, mainly because unless it was for Roleplay purposes only about 3 of them were ever used.

With 3.x when I played an Elf it was either Standard Elf (High Elf) or a Dark Elf (Drow).
With 1E and 2E it was Standard Elf (High Elf), Grey Elf (Faerie), for a Dark Elf (Drow).

Everything I have seen about 4E so far has me dreading it, and spending about 15 minutes looking at the introductory adventure they have released doesn't really clear things up.
I do have the 3 Core Books on preorder with my Game Store and will look at them, but going beyond that is harder to say, especially given all the 3.x stuff I do have on pdf and the stuff that my gamers also have. And up until about a year ago, I was buying the books right and left, just the newer books for 3.x are so messed up it isn't even funny, like the writers/editors can't decide what rules they are using anymore.

[Hannes665]

I just build a Eldrich Wizard. I like most of what I see but one thing struck me odd about Magic, you learn them as "Powers" and you only get those few spells that Power allows you to learn.

You will at most have 2 "At-Will" spells and the Cantrips, these includes Magic Missile and Cloud of daggers. 4 "Daily" spells, 4 "Encounter" and 7 (level 30) "Utility Spells".

So no longer collection of spells from level 1 and upward... knowing 4 level 1, 3 Level 2, 2 Level 3 and so on.

From level 13th and every other level after that you get to replace 1 "Encounter" spells. So you "forget" the lesser "Encounter" spell as you gain levels. Why can´t the "All powerful" 21st level Wizard still not know couple of "lesser" spells, could be handy to push away those pesky little 1st and 2nd level fighters that wish to raid his tower.

At least this is how I understand the Spell-Power system.