First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

[Pmandrekar]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

I would think that you'd like to be able to contribute and not feel dumb, but essentially you're able to do this without any sacrifice on your end, and do this as many times as you like. You don't give up a feat or something else to do this. You'd think that the DM would provide some input as to whether your selections make sense with a campaign, so this would be unnecessary.

--Mike L.

The thing I dislike about this rule, by the way, is that it takes the GM out of the equation. Traditionally, if a player moves down a path that ends up not contributing to the group, as a GM, I'm open to the idea of changing their character just enough to make the new direction happen. Sometimes I can work through the story, in that I can have characters find redemption, or be granted something in play. This rule takes that sort of interplay with the GM out of the equation. "I can just swap the feat at the next level up... no matter what the GM says. Says so on page ***"

If I were to play this game (a big if), That sort of rules lawyering would be the first thing I'd explain to my players as how we're going to play outside the rules.

-P.

[Anaraxes]

Most of the big MMORPGs seem to introduce a "respec" feature that allows people to rebuild their characters. However, they've got the excuse that the designers are constantly fiddling with the rules, and you can have your abilities nerfed out from under you. That seems less likely with a paper game. The old rules won't change, though you do have the threat of no longer having the most 1337 build whenever an expansion book gets printed.

[Warlockco]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Most of the big MMORPGs seem to introduce a "respec" feature that allows people to rebuild their characters. However, they've got the excuse that the designers are constantly fiddling with the rules, and you can have your abilities nerfed out from under you. That seems less likely with a paper game. The old rules won't change, though you do have the threat of no longer having the most 1337 build whenever an expansion book gets printed.

But in the MMOs you have to either do a special task, or pay for it. And not all MMOs give unlimited respecs either.

City of Heroes/Villains you get x amount and no more.

World of Warcraft, each Respec after the first one costs more and more.

[Gamer_Zer0]

Originally Posted by Pmandrekar

.

I agree with your assessment, but I think that realistic character development, as we understand it, was simply not a design goal here.

-P.

When has it ever been?

[Pmandrekar]

Originally Posted by Gamer_Zer0

When has it ever been?

Exactly my point. The game hasn't ever been designed to let you play out most kinds of stories where the hero advances through experience and adversity, as much as the game has always been designed to allow your hero to advance through experience points, and adverse encounters.

Why should 4th edition of D&D have any different expectations for it?

-P.

[Mister Negative]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Since I bought the book, I've been able to read more thoroughly some of the areas I glossed over, and the big thing that stands out to me is the "retraining" section. If you decide that a feat or skill isn't useful, on the next level up you can replace it.

Essentially, it's a "do-over". A "hit the reload button, go back, and stick a different feat or skill in place for your character."

To me, that misses the point of a PNP RPG; your characters are expected to grow and develop, and part of that is making choices that affect development down the line. If the character decided to pick a feat that they ended up not using, it's not the end of the world. The "retraining" is an enabling feature for Min/Max-ers and Powergamers.

--Mike L.

I think that this was a intentionally added feature, too, but not for Min/Maxers and Powergamers. I also agree that it is totally "game-y", but it serves a real and valuable purpose in D&D 4th:

D&D makes loads of money selling you new rulebooks with new feats (and now, new powers). If you see a new power in a new rulebook, you can retrain to get it! This feat isn't necessarily more powerful or more useful than the current feat you have (and if it is, then that's a problem with D&D's assignment of level for the feat). It is just one what you think is cooler or more likely to be used by you.

One of the big beefs players had about 3.5 was the continuing cascade of new feats in new books, all of which "their character would have taken back at 3rd level, if only the book was out." Now, that's no problem.

I think their only mistake with this was to stop giving you new encounter and daily powers at higher levels, and only allowing you to swap them out. D&D Players want MORE powers at higher levels, not just better ones. As long as you are ramping up their power scale so much anyway, what would a few more powers matter in the long run? However, perhaps this was problematic in playtesting.

Again, to maintain my cred as a GURPS lover, the whole power system is really "videogamey" in feeling, and non-sensical from a world building perspective (but, boy does it look fun!).

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Notably all the Profession, Knowledge, and Craft skills are gone. Some of the Knowledge skills have been split out into explicit options, but it is no longer open-ended; I can't take "Knowledge: History of Yrth" or whatever.

The loss of Craft and Profession are really the only big beefs I have with the new skill system. I think they pared down the list a bit too far, but at least every skill is useful (as opposed to, say, Forgery). Plus, there's no skill ranks ... good riddance.

Now, the rest of the system, now that's another story. I think the lack of traditional character types (druids, illusionists, necromancers, cads) bothers me the most.

[Cybren]

Forgery was awesome in 3.5

guess what you used to see if something was a forgery?
The forgery skill. It's pretty awesome if you ever actually use it. (that is to say if you want to go out and make fake things. not "if you get the chance to". you can use it pro actively like any other skill)

[Flyerfan1991]

Originally Posted by Mister Negative

I think that this was a intentionally added feature, too, but not for Min/Maxers and Powergamers. I also agree that it is totally "game-y", but it serves a real and valuable purpose in D&D 4th:

D&D makes loads of money selling you new rulebooks with new feats (and now, new powers). If you see a new power in a new rulebook, you can retrain to get it! This feat isn't necessarily more powerful or more useful than the current feat you have (and if it is, then that's a problem with D&D's assignment of level for the feat). It is just one what you think is cooler or more likely to be used by you.

One of the big beefs players had about 3.5 was the continuing cascade of new feats in new books, all of which "their character would have taken back at 3rd level, if only the book was out." Now, that's no problem.

I think their only mistake with this was to stop giving you new encounter and daily powers at higher levels, and only allowing you to swap them out. D&D Players want MORE powers at higher levels, not just better ones. As long as you are ramping up their power scale so much anyway, what would a few more powers matter in the long run? However, perhaps this was problematic in playtesting.

Again, to maintain my cred as a GURPS lover, the whole power system is really "videogamey" in feeling, and non-sensical from a world building perspective (but, boy does it look fun!).

I figure that there will be books upon books of new Paragon Paths, just like 3.x books with Prestige Classes. Never mind the part about 3.x's Prestige Classes being optional; in 4.0 it's mandatory. Forget about being the Heroic Fantasy version of The Man With No Name; the Paragon Paths are designed to make this like Cheers, where everybody knows your name.

--Mike L.

[Flyerfan1991]

Originally Posted by Pmandrekar

Exactly my point. The game hasn't ever been designed to let you play out most kinds of stories where the hero advances through experience and adversity, as much as the game has always been designed to allow your hero to advance through experience points, and adverse encounters.

Why should 4th edition of D&D have any different expectations for it?

-P.

I disagree. We've played D&D that way for years because when those of us who created our college group got together, we admitted we were tired of the hack-n-slash D&D campaign. The issue I have is that it's about an order of magnitude harder to pull such a thing off in 4.0 as opposed to 3.x or earlier versions.

--Mike L.