D&D 4e Thoughts

[pyat]

I'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!

Comments

[jdarkwulf.livejournal.com]

If it helps, many of the non-combat spells have now become "rituals", so you can cast them without having to forgo blasty combat spells.

Yeah, it lets you rampage through dungeons more. :)

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

If I can ever time a trip to Ontario with a D & D game you run, I'd love to sit in.

[relee.livejournal.com]

There's only three different flavours of elf? That's weird... You'd think if they're going to include more than one, they'd include all four. ^.^;;

Which three made it?


I've never _really_ played D&D myself, except in the video game adaptations. I've never had anybody to play with. ^.^;;

But I love to read the books! They paint such an interesting fantasy world in my imagination.

[rikoshi.livejournal.com]

My biggest beef with 4E is that it basically, as you say, only presents rules for combat.

Effectively, there aren't rules for much else, and the game seems to work with the tacit assumption that the only thing you're ever going to be doing is killing things.

To employ normanrafferty's own axiom of "Rules Endorse Behavior," in the case of 4E, it seems that the only 'behavior' that's expected is killing things and taking their stuff, and to me, that's a huge step backwards for role-playing.

[seritaph.livejournal.com]

I've been of the opinion D&D was the weakest of gaming engines for quite some time now. Spent the last two weekends playing 4th and have to say it's not helping my opinion of things.

It's a paper and pen MMO. That's cool and all, but I tend to go more with that when I am online. Guess I expect a bit more when I'm throwing dice around physically.

[curtana.livejournal.com]

Nearly all the D&D games that I've run have had low-to-minimal combat (like, ranging from a combat every 4-5 sessions or so to one or two combats in a campaign of a year or longer). I see nothing that persuades me that the kind of game I like to run would be better done in 4E than 3E.

[aprivatefox.livejournal.com]

I'm enjoying D&D 4 a lot, but I think that's explained by two major factors:

1) I use minis heavily for D&D.
2) I get my allotment of combat-light RPGery from a lot of places, and actually look forward to combat in D&D.

D&D 4 works very well as a set of rules for playing an extremely flexible, role-playing-ish minatures fighting game. And, when we approach it like that, my group has a lot of fun. =)

[bandersnitch.livejournal.com]

Typically I like a combat oriented game simply because it leaves all that meta game stuff up to the GM.

That being said, I would like a LITTLE help with some rules on some of the skills they leave up to you.

One of the goals for a game system I hope to create is to give an open ended magic system that lets you do things combat or otherwise with magic. Leaving spell creation up to the player, but giving them the tools.

[madmanofprague.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking 1 chicken = 1 gp, but I can't remember how we came to that conclusion.

1 cow = 10 gp, though.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Still, any reasonable DM would let you roll up a Gnome, if you really wanted one.

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.")

[kisekileia.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that this game really leans more towards the idea of D&D as "killing things and taking their stuff" than 3.5, which is unfortunate for me because for me, that was the least interesting part of the game. (Killing things was fun when it was for a good reason, but treasure never struck me as a great motivator.) I also don't like the change to the alignment system--there's no good reason why "good" and "evil" should essentially mean "chaotic good" and "lawful evil" and "lawful good" and "chaotic evil" should be separate alignments. If I were to run 4e, I think I would port in the 3e alignment system--not the alignment-based spells, but the nice symmetrical nine-alignment system. I do like the convenience of powers--they'll be easy to just put on index cards. But you're right, they are kind of video game-ish.

I haven't read through all of the book yet, but it sounds from what you said like they took out some stuff that I really value, though there were some non-combat spells that just weren't that useful in 3.5, IIRC. I'll gladly play 4e if someone I know is running a game, especially if the DM likes things to be relatively heavy on character development, but I'm not sure I'd choose it over 3.5 except for the novelty.

[koogrr.livejournal.com]

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

It is absolutely vital! Otherwise, how will you know how many chickens you can buy for your starting GP? That totally cinches the first dungeon you go into, where you release the cartfull of chickens into the dungeon to set off all the traps, and tempt all the monsters to eat themselves to a state of food drunken stupor.

Otherwise, what? You'll be relying on Lefty McFingers to spot every trap, instead of the convenient blood smear and spray of feathers?

I suppose if you insist on being "old school" but Think Outside the Dungeon!

[zenten.livejournal.com]

They do have stats for pigs, right? I mean, otherwise what are the goblins supposed to ride into battle.