Community

Warweaver: [Much of 3e was] tossed by the wayside as "unworkable", rather than taking the time to perfect what might have merit.

But dude, D&D has a rich tradition. Aspects that didnt make it into the first 4e books, can still be developed (carefully) in future 4e books.

For example, Im disappointed Psi powers didnt make it into the first volume of the Players Handbooks. But eventually they will make it into a future Players Handbook. A tradition I care about will resurface.

The options you (and I) crave, will eventually arrive as new books with new options appear. Its inevitable. In the meantime, its reasonable for developers to err on the side of caution to lay a strong foundation where the options that are available are fair and balance. Hopefully, its a solid foundation that the future of D&D can rest securely on.

Upto now the D&D tradition didnt value balance - in fact it opposed balance, such as ensuring that high-level Wizards were vastly more powerful than high-level Fighers. 4es concern with balance is a good thing.

Im disappointed multiclassing is so stilted. I prefer freeform as an option (tho I appreciate how unbalanced cherry picking combinations of powers can become). On the other hand, I hated prestige classes because they were so wildly imbalanced, and poorly designed. Now in 4e, paragon paths are both relatively balanced with other paragon paths (or at least can be) and offer a wide range of choices.

The new concept of Roles and Power Sources, and Paths, and Destintinies creates a different kind of bewildering options of many different classes and class builds to choose from. Its easy to design your own balanced class that is exactly like the one you want - without worrying about multiclass shenanigans breaking the game if it combines with other classes. You can homebrew your own character class, or simply wait for an official one thats seems comparable.

For example, Forgotten Realms came out with a new kind of Warlock build, adding more options for players that like Warlocks. I myself am excited about playing a Swordmage, as well as an Arcane healing Artificer. Eventually, every kind of character concept that appeals to me will be here in 4e. But it will happen in a way that avoids brokenness and keeps the game functioning healthily.

Its just a matter of time.

D&D 4e is better and will be just as rich as the tradition it inherited and even richer as it develops awesome ideas even further - in a fair and playable way!

Exposed_Wires wrote:

Alright! Money where your mouth is time!

Pick a ritual and tell me what you would like to change about it. Do not simply say "make it cheaper." Give me a gp cost. Give me a cast time. I would also love an explanation for the choices you make.

I want to know what it is you would consider an improvement and see if it's actually something I could get behind so I can finally decide whether or not I should be concerned with whether or not you like 4e. I will be as objective as humanly possible.

Humor me.

Wizard's Sight is probably the worst example, so I'll start there. I would increase the duration of the scry sensor to minutes instead of rounds. I would also triple (at least) the range of the spell, so you're not just peeking around a dungeon corner when you use it. Finally, I would probably cut the cost in half (although with those other changes, this might not necessary).

For most of the rituals, cutting the cost would probably be enough - I am firmly of the belief that you don't have to make rituals cost a lot (for the levels you receive them) to make accomplishing those tasks normally (i.e. with skills) be attractive. Faced with the bare fact of either spending resources (that could be used for Enchant Item) or facing greater danger but doing something for free, I think I know what most D&D players would pick. I think players mind being inefficient about their purchases more than danger - they're adventurers, after all! :P

I would also change rituals in general to be more varied. I don't have my books on me right now, but IIRC there's a bunch of "legend lore" or "ask the gods" type spells, transport spells, some conjurations like the Disk...but there's entire categories of 3e utilities that aren't touched. And, while I'm sure some will disagree, I still want a Wish ritual - I don't think noncombat rituals always need to be as crunchily defined as powers.

Haldrik wrote:

The options you (and I) crave, will eventually arrive as new books with new options appear. Its inevitable. In the meantime, its reasonable for developers to err on the side of caution to lay a strong foundation where the options that are available are fair and balance. Hopefully, its a solid foundation that the future of D&D can rest securely on.

Well, yes and no. I'm not complaining about concepts that didn't make it into 4e that weren't in the core-3 for 3e (like psi), because I do realize those will come eventually. And I'm fine with laying a strong foundation. However, there is a difference between a strong foundation and a restrictive one.

I see a trend in 4e mechanics to reduce everything to very specific mechanics along a very well-defined path. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised and they do come up with rules that think outside the box, but given 4e's dislike of sub-systems and obsession with balance, I don't think they'll take risks like that.

For example, they might come up with a spellthief base class or a warweaver paragon path eventually. But will either of their mechanics be satisfying enough to do what people want? How do you steal abilities from the monsters without 4e worrying it's "too broken for 4e"? (Especially when you can potentially fight things up to 8 levels above now.) There's already an awful lot in 4e that I literally can't do. Part of this is the idea of tying roles to classes, and part of it is how the rules foundation works.

3e is broken, yes, in some places badly. But I can boost, nerf, and fix along the way as a DM, while letting my players play and do nearly anything they want, coming up with all kinds of creative combinations and options. I'm under no illusions though - I can only do this due to my years of familiarity with the system. But in the end, I can nerf/buff/fix a mechanic in 3e much more easily than I can come up with a mechanic whole-cloth that's removed or deemed "unviable" in 4e, and hope it is balanced. In 4e, coming up with new stuff within the mechanical paths is much easier, and that's great - but those paths are smaller than 3e.

Haldrik wrote:

Also, I LIKE the fact that I bought the Forgotten Realms Players Guide and can use it in any game I play, whether or not its an FR setting.

The portability and mix-and-match-ability of D&D products is ultimately a good thing because it allows more options. If I like a race in Forgotten Realms and a class in Eberron, it is easy and balanced to use these options in any setting.

Yes - people are now buying the FR guide that have no intention of ever playing FR, just for the Swordsage and such.

But then...what's the point? If your setting-specific sourcebooks aren't really for running a specific setting, but adding crunch that everyone can use...why isn't the FRPG a core book?

Taking up one of the "3 alotted" books for a standalone setting on nearly pure, any-system crunch was a mistake IMO. You can just put the swordsage in a PHB, and have a phrase in the FR books that says they're very common in the Realms. Taking up a book on it means there's that much less room for actual setting.

Rexracerjr wrote:

Have fun trying to play 3e. You will come back. They always do.

I've been "trying" (and, IMO, succeeding) to play 3e for a good six or so years now, and I know enough people who tried 4e and went back that it's far from "always". But like I said in the OP, I would be happy to be surprised by later material convincing me I can get more enjoyment out of 4e.

malkav666 wrote:

Thanks for sharing Warweaver

Thank you too.

malkav666 wrote:

As a final point, please don't not come to the forums anymore just because you don't prefer 4e. Every person that gets driven off by harsh anti or pro rhetoric makes our community that much smaller and narrow in scope. Diversity is the spice of life, and I have always enjoyed the varied opinions and views offered by the members of this community. So stick around won't ya?

This is very true, and one of the strengths of these boards (being the most popular tabletop rpg by a wide margin has its advantages in forum community size). And don't worry, I'm not going anywhere - I might be sticking more to the Previous Editions forums than elsewhere, but just because I'm not buying any more 4e books doesn't mean I'm disappearing.

In fact, I had to homebrew an aranea for a 4e Halloween-themed one-shot I did recently, because one of my players is really creeped out by spellcasting spiders with human eyes and hands...I may post it up here eventually. :P

Rant_Casey wrote:

I have to agree with the OP. I'll wait for 5e, and hope they take stock and try to bring the 'lost sheep' into the fold. Unless the hard core 4E loyalists are willing to buy four copies of each book, they won't be able to make up for the multitudes who are walking away, waiting, and hoping, for an edition that better meets their gaming needs.

I would still love to see the evidence for the highlighted statement. I keep seeing it asserted, over and over, yet, while working retail, I actively watched as 3.X sales declined long before 4E was announced, and 4E sales significantly exceeded 3.X sales beyond the core trio of books, and still appear to whenever I revisit the retail sector. *shrug* In my experience, for each player locally sticking with 3.X instead of 4E, at least that many players jumped onto 4E, and everyone else converted to 4E altogether, a great many flat out selling off their old 3.X collections.

WotC's internals would be the best actual evidence of the status of 4E sales compared to 3.X.