D&D 4e Thoughts
Jul. 19th, 2008 12:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pyatI'd not read any reviews of D&D 4th edition before picking up the Player's Handbook. I still haven't. So, these observations may seem rather basic to people hanging out on RPG.net and the like. This is also not a play test, and it is a commentary on the PHB alone. I don't have the DMG or Monster Manual.
I'm not terribly concerned about the changes in race and class, though my first reaction is "Why bother taking some away?" Still, any reasonable DM would let you roll up a Gnome, if you really wanted one. I also wonder why there was a need for three different flavours of elf.
The spell list has been truncated greatly, or at least changed so that almost every spell is a combat spell. On a casual flip through, I found just two mostly non-combat spell on the wizard list - "Disguise Self" and "Fly." To me, the non-combat spells were often the most memorable parts of a D&D game. The use of "Leomund's Secure Shelter" or "Illusionary Terrain" creates a more memorable game experience than simply rolling for damage. Particularly now, when nearly every spell is simply a variant on rolling for damage.
I don't have any objection to the way spells are cast and apportioned. It seems fairly elegant, though fitting the non-combat spells into that framework would be hard. The lack of non-combat spells is partially covered by the list of 28 rituals, but only partially.
The skill list is reduced, which may be a good thing or a bad thing. Seriously, I don't know how I feel about that. On the one hand, it means that DMs are encouraged to make situational rulings based on roleplay, etc., rather than leaving things to the roll of a die. On the other hand... it means that DMs are encouraged to make situational rulings based on roleplay, etc., rather than leaving things to the roll of a die!
The equipment list has also been stripped to down to weapons and combat gear, with a tiny selection of things like services. I have no rational cause to think that an essential part of the D&D experience involves figuring out how many chickens you can buy for a copper piece, but I miss that information, darn it!
And really, I can't help think that, when Hackmaster has a lot more information for adjudicating social interaction and exploration than your RPG, something may have gone awry.
It can be said that the essential D&D experience is "killing things that live in a hole and taking their stuff." And this game can certainly present that. However, a lot of the bits of flavour and background presented in previous editions has disappeared, which makes it less like D&D - at least to me. The details that have been removed were not necessarily good or bad on their own - they just were. And, as any D&D fan knows, the most memorable parts of the game were often the roleplay that occurred in the between-times, when you weren't killing things in a hole.
A clumsy automotive metaphor! The 4th edition is rather like a new Austin Mini. In many ways much better than an old Austin Mini, but really sharing only a general shape and name with the original.
I close by saying that I am still very much looking forward to playing 4E, but I doubt I'll run it any time soon. The end!
I'm not terribly concerned about the changes in race and class, though my first reaction is "Why bother taking some away?" Still, any reasonable DM would let you roll up a Gnome, if you really wanted one. I also wonder why there was a need for three different flavours of elf.
The spell list has been truncated greatly, or at least changed so that almost every spell is a combat spell. On a casual flip through, I found just two mostly non-combat spell on the wizard list - "Disguise Self" and "Fly." To me, the non-combat spells were often the most memorable parts of a D&D game. The use of "Leomund's Secure Shelter" or "Illusionary Terrain" creates a more memorable game experience than simply rolling for damage. Particularly now, when nearly every spell is simply a variant on rolling for damage.
I don't have any objection to the way spells are cast and apportioned. It seems fairly elegant, though fitting the non-combat spells into that framework would be hard. The lack of non-combat spells is partially covered by the list of 28 rituals, but only partially.
The skill list is reduced, which may be a good thing or a bad thing. Seriously, I don't know how I feel about that. On the one hand, it means that DMs are encouraged to make situational rulings based on roleplay, etc., rather than leaving things to the roll of a die. On the other hand... it means that DMs are encouraged to make situational rulings based on roleplay, etc., rather than leaving things to the roll of a die!
The equipment list has also been stripped to down to weapons and combat gear, with a tiny selection of things like services. I have no rational cause to think that an essential part of the D&D experience involves figuring out how many chickens you can buy for a copper piece, but I miss that information, darn it!
And really, I can't help think that, when Hackmaster has a lot more information for adjudicating social interaction and exploration than your RPG, something may have gone awry.
It can be said that the essential D&D experience is "killing things that live in a hole and taking their stuff." And this game can certainly present that. However, a lot of the bits of flavour and background presented in previous editions has disappeared, which makes it less like D&D - at least to me. The details that have been removed were not necessarily good or bad on their own - they just were. And, as any D&D fan knows, the most memorable parts of the game were often the roleplay that occurred in the between-times, when you weren't killing things in a hole.
A clumsy automotive metaphor! The 4th edition is rather like a new Austin Mini. In many ways much better than an old Austin Mini, but really sharing only a general shape and name with the original.
I close by saying that I am still very much looking forward to playing 4E, but I doubt I'll run it any time soon. The end!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 01:56 am (UTC)Is that feasible in the current rules? The "Savage Species" book has been rendered obsolete, and I don't know what would be involved, in the new system, in letting someone play something from off of the PC race list. Is the structure such that you could grab things from the MM and play them as PCs? (If so, cool.)
I've "winged it" before with various systems, but I got the impression from some of the preview hints that there was a lot going on in the design of a PC race, including various racial benefits they get at different levels.
Regards some of the strip-down, I wonder if it might be because of the desire they had to make D&D seem more like an MMO - to the point where making an MMO that used D&D rules would be a lot easier. "Squishy" roleplay details (such as various noncombat skills with potential creative applications, and the clutter of non-combat items on the gear list) might be harder to code in an MMO ... so out they go.
Anyway, I remember one of the rare times I actually got to PLAY as a character - a bard - one major goal for me was that I really wanted to get high enough to cast Leomund's Secure Shelter. (And I actually built a model to have at the ready to put on the table when such an opportunity should arise.) Alas, the DM lost interest before I got even close to that goal ... but it's the sort of thing that I found interesting. Also, clever use of illusions has played a part in some of the more memorable uses of magic in d20 games I've been in. It's certainly more clever than just digging through various supplements and pulling out the most imbalanced offensive spell to annihilate enemies with. (Unless, that is, the player was creative in some way in how he employed it or at least described it....)
The skill list is reduced, which may be a good thing or a bad thing. Seriously, I don't know how I feel about that.
I'm likewise of a divided mind when it comes to things like that. I've yet to find the perfect balance between what things I think ought to be best handled by GM fiat, or what things ought to have a definite percentage chance of success or failure that players can count on when making decisions.
Anyway, I don't know what to think. I certainly don't wish ill on WotC. If people want to continue playing, say, D&D 3.5, it's not like anybody's going to stop them. Once you buy the books for D&D 3.5, you've got what you need; it's not like you're forced to "upgrade" to 4.0 in order to keep playing.
All the same, I feel as if, based on the second-hand information I've been getting on the game, that it's taking a few steps forward and several back, and it doesn't sound any less complicated to run a game. I'm not encouraged to blow so much money on a new rules set anytime soon - but if you get a chance to play, I hope you have a grand time at it! (Envious, I am! It's been years since I've been able to be a PLAYER in a proper "dungeon.")
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 02:52 am (UTC)Certainly! The MM gives the common NPC racial abilities (with the caveat that they may be PCs with the DMs permission) for sixteen races, including Gnomes.
Doug.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 05:06 am (UTC)One thing I do wish (probably vainly) is that it would be possible to play D&D where the Monster Manual and DMG would be in the hands of the DM, and there'd be no need for players to look at them. (In my d20 games, that didn't quite work, because of spellcasters who could use polymorph or various summoning spells, and hence would have the audacity to ask me to hand over my Monster Manual so they could shop for the proper stats of whatever they wanted to call or turn into.)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 05:37 am (UTC)Even the magic items that PCs are likely to get are listed in the PHB. There is only that tiny portion of "other races" and their PHB-style mechanics in the back of the DMG that makes the MM at all necessary for players - and even then, the assumption is that those are DM Prerogative to include at all, and won't really be needed in player hands once character creation is over.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 02:01 am (UTC)Anyway, I remember one of the rare times I actually got to PLAY as a character - a bard - one major goal for me was that I really wanted to get high enough to cast Leomund's Secure Shelter.
You know what's weird? Me too. I wanted to have a character with the specific ability to use that spell. I wanted to use the floor map that came with 3.0, too. I have a weird fondess for game effects of that kind, that produce small serviceable shelters, and the like.