Now that I have read 4e...

[Josh]

So by now many people have actually seen 4e.  What do you think about it?

[PhoenixInferno]

I still haven't read ALL of it, but:
1) Monsters could use a little more flavor than just "sack of HP that looks like this".
2) Skill challenges a little too challenging?  I don't know.  Could be screwy though.
3) Multiclassing is TOO rigid (nothing we haven't complained about before though).

[Straw_Man]

I still haven't read ALL of it, but:
1) Monsters could use a little more flavor than just "sack of HP that looks like this".
2) Skill challenges a little too challenging?  I don't know.  Could be screwy though.
3) Multiclassing is TOO rigid (nothing we haven't complained about before though).

I agree with the points above and in addition.

1) Feel the skill list is shrunk for the worst.
2) Combat takes far too long.

[heffroncm]

I like it.  It's fun for me and my group.  There are theoretical issues, but until I give it at a few month of solid play, gain some levels, and see more mechanics in actual action I'm not going to condemn it for them.  Martial Power and the Adventurer's Vault are going to be big factors in wether 4e can be as flexible as I want it to be.

[Caelic]

It mostly does the job they wanted it to do.  I think it fails in a couple of their design goals--they haven't really eliminated the "one shot kill" against the BBEG, for instance--and they really should have crunched the numbers on the skill system better before release.

That said, it does do the job they wanted it to do, overall.  Unfortunately for me, what they wanted the game to do is not what I want out of a game at this point.

[j0lt]

To be honest, I've so far only browsed the PHB.  I was hoping for the same surprise that I got with Star Wars Saga Edition.
All the previews of Saga really turned me off, so I didn't think I'd buy it.  My friend wanted me to pick him up a copy, and I paged through it and discovered a really great simplification of the 3.x d20 system.

Not so with 4e.  They've changed so much of the fluff that you can't even call it D&D anymore.  There were several minor changes that were not only unnecessary, but in fact broke something that worked fine to begin with.  (what, only 5 alignment types?)  Their reasoning behind chopping out half the deities, was that the list was overcrowded and fully alleged redundancies.  But instead of merely trimming the list of some of the less popular/used deities, they chopped out more than half of 'em, including some very major ones, and replaced a handful with ones I've never even heard of!
Mechanically, I'm not sure if I like what they've done with the races and classes.  I'm willing to give it a shot, but if my instincts are right I don't think I'll like it.

All in all I give it a 3/10. 

[jameswilliamogle]

I agree that a "Saga" edition of DnD would've worked a lot better than what 4.0 turned out to be.  We were already using its skill system in our home games. 

[Straw_Man]

Why didn't they implement the wound track in SWSE?

[Banor]

As nice as it was, it seem that it was too easy to drop somebody unconscious in the first few rounds of combat. A Scoundrel/Gunsligner/Bounty Hunter could drop you 3 condition just by winning init not mention actually beating your DT... Condition track was fun but probably a bit too hard to balance..

[Treantmonklvl20]

I like the abbriviated Skill system personally.

I also like the simplified (and less prevalent) alignment system.

I thought they did a great job of races - all of them have measurable advantages over the others.

The idea of At-Will/Encounter/Daily/Utility powers for all classes is a good idea IMO.

I found play pretty easy to DM, and things went pretty smoothly except the inavoidable rules referencing for a new system ("What do you mean he can charge over uneven terrain???")

I also find the new system more tactical.  Getting rid of Full Attack creates many more tactical options and considerations.  We're still getting the hang of that - but I think we will.

First level characters come in with a fair bit more they can do (so do low level monsters) which makes combat at low level much more interesting than it used to be.

The lack of flexibility in the classes is a definite negative.  I imagine that will be less of an issue as more splat is released, but right now it's a pretty big issue.  In 3.5 I could make a reality pretty much any fantasy-type character that could be imagined - not so in 4e at this time.

The 1X diagonal movement I also think was a step in the wrong direction.  1.5X just made so much more sense.

I also think combat got quite a bit tougher.  Encounters that are supposed to be "fill in" have party members barely surviving.  This makes the game alot more focused on combat IMO (which may be a good or bad thing based on your point of view).

There is also currently a distinct lack of flavor in this new campaign world.  Again, we need some more fluff to expand on it.  In 3.5, or 3e we could just reference past editions for fluff - but now the world is completely different.  (Unless you are using FR or Eberron).

Levelling up is crazy-hard now.  10 encounters to level up once?  I'll be houseruling this one myself (lots of ad-hoc XP rewards)

Overall - I like 4e, but right now it's rather limited - but it has potential.

[heffroncm]

Levelling up is crazy-hard now.  10 encounters to level up once?  I'll be houseruling this one myself (lots of ad-hoc XP rewards)

That's the suggested number of standard encounters.  If you go by the DMG guidelines, 3.x takes 13.5 standard encounters per level.  If you use a minor quest and a major quest each level, you should end up averaging 8 encounters per level.

[PhoenixInferno]

Or you can simply reduce the amount of XP required to level.

[Treantmonklvl20]

The good thing about levelling up being too hard when you are the DM is it is a super-easy fix.

I don't like it if my DM is a super-stickler for the rules though 

At least low level play is a lot more fun in 4e (at least for Wizards!!!)

Since I've been hornswaggled into DM'ing the first 4e Campaign - I guess that's not a concern for awhile for me 

[tsuyoshikentsu]

While diagonal movement might be more real at 1.5, it's a complete bitch to calculate on the fly -- ESPECIALLY if you're not moving in a straight diagonal line.

[ImperiousLeader]

Yeah, I'm finding the decrease in time it takes to figure out a move with 1 square diagonals is well worth the loss in realism.

And while I'm not missing the 3.5 cones, I am missing the Line Effect, I may reintroduce it.

[jameswilliamogle]

I miss UMD Rogues :cry:

[Alpha]

I may be alone in this, but I'm finding myself frustrated with what seems to be a drastic reduction in out-of-combat rp options.  Especially as a wizard, in 3.5 I often memorized 'rp' spells for 1/4-1/3 of my spells(this includes illusions, however).  Now, out-of-combat spells have been reduced to a couple powers scattered across the progression, and expensive rituals(400gp for detect object?).  I don't want to have to pay hard-earned gold every time I want to use magic to solve an rp problem! 
Especially as one inclined to skip encounters on occasion, I would like some options(magic ones in particular) that don't require my automatic reaction to creatures to be "kill or persuade!"(ie, casting a silent image rock wall to conceal us from the passing orc brigade).  Am I wrong on this?

[Straw_Man]

I may be alone in this, but I'm finding myself frustrated with what seems to be a drastic reduction in out-of-combat rp options.  Especially as a wizard, in 3.5 I often memorized 'rp' spells for 1/4-1/3 of my spells(this includes illusions, however).  Now, out-of-combat spells have been reduced to a couple powers scattered across the progression, and expensive rituals(400gp for detect object?).  I don't want to have to pay hard-earned gold every time I want to use magic to solve an rp problem! 
Especially as one inclined to skip encounters on occasion, I would like some options(magic ones in particular) that don't require my automatic reaction to creatures to be "kill or persuade!"(ie, casting a silent image rock wall to conceal us from the passing orc brigade).  Am I wrong on this?

You find the one of the nubs of dissatisfaction with $E and the reason for it's oft called resemblance to MMORPGs.

[Treantmonklvl20]

I may be alone in this, but I'm finding myself frustrated with what seems to be a drastic reduction in out-of-combat rp options.  Especially as a wizard, in 3.5 I often memorized 'rp' spells for 1/4-1/3 of my spells(this includes illusions, however).  Now, out-of-combat spells have been reduced to a couple powers scattered across the progression, and expensive rituals(400gp for detect object?).  I don't want to have to pay hard-earned gold every time I want to use magic to solve an rp problem! 
Especially as one inclined to skip encounters on occasion, I would like some options(magic ones in particular) that don't require my automatic reaction to creatures to be "kill or persuade!"(ie, casting a silent image rock wall to conceal us from the passing orc brigade).  Am I wrong on this?

The invisibility and Illusionary wall spells don't do this for you?

[Alpha]

The invisibility and Illusionary wall spells don't do this for you?

The use of both is extremely limited by comparison(not to mention waiting until level10 to get illusionary wall).
Regardless, that's not the only example I could come up with.  The point is still the extremely limited options.  Sustain standard on invisibility doesn't make me terribly happy either(does that make things more balanced?  Perhaps.  Does it make invisibility more irritating?  Definitely).