Thoughts on 4th Edition?
17 years ago
General
the official release is just around the corner, but many of you have had a chance at previews of the books and gameplay-- whether legitimately, or through pirated scans --so let's see what everyone has to say.
One thing I'm curious about from everyone: Humans as monsters. This was included in a recent excerpt on the website, and although presented as something brand new and innovative, it was last seen in the AD&D 2nd Edition Monster Manual. The example human in the artwork is a male with Caucasoid skin tone wearing bronze scale, and has short hair swept back with a slightly spiky look that would only be achievable with gel. How do people feel about this idea? Does it make things easier, or is it "dumbing down" NPCs in what is admittedly a human-centric game? If humans aren't presented as monsters, should elves and dwarves be?
Most importantly, of course: are you going to switch to 4th, play multiple editions, or keep with what you're currently playing?
Personally, i'm going to give 4th a shot, but keep playing d20 system: there are still too many great books out there for the system, and my own setting doesn't mesh well with the racial and class concepts in 4th.
--
luckynumber
One thing I'm curious about from everyone: Humans as monsters. This was included in a recent excerpt on the website, and although presented as something brand new and innovative, it was last seen in the AD&D 2nd Edition Monster Manual. The example human in the artwork is a male with Caucasoid skin tone wearing bronze scale, and has short hair swept back with a slightly spiky look that would only be achievable with gel. How do people feel about this idea? Does it make things easier, or is it "dumbing down" NPCs in what is admittedly a human-centric game? If humans aren't presented as monsters, should elves and dwarves be?
Most importantly, of course: are you going to switch to 4th, play multiple editions, or keep with what you're currently playing?
Personally, i'm going to give 4th a shot, but keep playing d20 system: there are still too many great books out there for the system, and my own setting doesn't mesh well with the racial and class concepts in 4th.
--
luckynumber
FA+

hermaphropride
marsupials
I'm gonna play 4th, because, quite frankly, I was reading all the wizards previews on it, and it sound exciting. Combat speeded up, new and innovative concepts, fixes on old bugs. I'm very interested in seeing how things turn out.
I'll still play in 3.5 games that people run--I've got a library full of 3.0/3.5 books, and I'm not about to throw them away--but 4th sounds like enough fun that games that I run are going to be 4th ed.
It's nice enough, and it looks so quick and easy that I bet it's a great system for pick-up games, but it's not D&D. It's a lot more streamlined, but that's a minus as well as a plus. And I really don't know how I feel about the distribution of character abilities; I think it might take some flexibility away from a lot of characters.
Unfortunately though they're releasing a batch of new and expensive books in a recession and after the prior iteration of D&D was so well-loved. I worry that this may be good but doomed to flop worse than the new WoD.
Like Fuzzypaws said above, I do not like their money-grubbing approach at all, multiple core books, bullshit DDI. The canceling of Dragon and Dungeon magazines was also a serious piss-me-off.
Same with what Leucrotta said. It makes for a great pick-up game, but it's not D&D in my mind. All these damned "powers", the new skill system, all take away from the flexibility to make a character any way you want (even if it is sub-optimal).
Overall it's OK, but my friends are staying 3.5 (and Paizo's Pathfinder game) and that's fine with me.