One thing I like is that they recognized the problems with magic items. I'm hoping that they also recognized that after about 12th level, it's not you it's your stuff (in 3E). And I would argue that 3E plays best from 3-7th level...but in any case, we shall see.

Actually, they've been saying for awhile that the dependancy on magic items to keep up with the group was something they wanted to change. I'm not 100% sure how effective they've been as I haven't been able to play, but it seems to me that the significant plusses to your character and powers come from the character build and only a little from the magic items. They're also quite strict with how powerful your magic items should be at a given level.

Okay, my friend Manny's thoughts on the new edition:

He likes the rules for social encounters, and he likes that prep time has been drastically reduced.

That's about it for his likes.

For his dislikes, he starts right in by saying that a lot of the work that has been removed from the DM has been transfered to the players.

He also felt that, while a lot of things in 3.5 were overpowered, he's found 4e to be seriously underpowered, in contrast to a lot of fears and initial reactions.

After defending the new system (blind) for months and months that it's not going to like World of Warcraft, he read the book and came away saying that it is exactly like World of Warcraft, except that in WoW, the computer keeps track of all the math and everything for everybody.

He said the game is very well balanced for the most part across the board. However, he's now reversed his position on game balance, and has decided that, at least as far as the form it took in 4e, game balance is actually a crappy way to make an RPG. Everything comes across as SAME. The amount of variation and flavor between characters (or lack thereof) he found to be very off putting.

He was also very WTF??? about the one primary exception to game balance (as far as base classes go) -- the rogue. In 3.5 it was the CODzilla, in 4e it seems to be the roguezilla.

More importantly, he (and I) always had some big problems with the ridiculous and extremely unlikely combat options that wound up becoming commonplace in 3.5 rules because of quirks in the system mechanics. Now, with the bizarrely overpowered rogue combat tricks, the problem has just shifted to different, silly combat maneuvers, now even more comic book-like, and more improbable.

He said he'd really placed a lot of trust in WotC to deliver a new system worthy of supplanting 3.5, and they really let him down.

There's no longer a lot of talk in my regular D&D group of all of us switching to 4e. Instead, there is a lot more openness to some other system, or taking our own crack at some version of a d20 system. (I'm now more encouraged than ever to take a run at some sort of home-brewed, funky d20/GURPS hybrid, and see how it plays.)

They're also quite strict with how powerful your magic items should be at a given level.

You know, when put exactly this way, it sounds like exactly how you had to treat magic items in 3.x, just with a difference of style or flavor. I'm sure mechanically, it's completely different, but you must agree that the sentence "They're also quite strict with how powerful your magic items should be at a given level," taken just on it's own, is just as applicable to 3.x as you say it is to 4e.

Now, all of that having been said, I'm still thinking heavily about running out an buying a copy right now, though I should order online, since you can still get the PHB for $20 on Amazon. It's really clear at this point that it's not a system I can use to implement some of the ideas I have for my own fantasy worlds, but I'm tired of only knowing second hand.

Well, I agree 3.x might have been strict about magic items. Our DM was not, and I think the new rules would make it more difficult for him to give out overpowered magic candy because they tend to be more clear & direct. i could be totally wrong. Time will tell.

Anyway, here's a very interesting Enworld post from a playtester who has had the advantage of playing 4E for months. It's lengthy but worth reading - [link]

For his dislikes, he starts right in by saying that a lot of the work that has been removed from the DM has been transfered to the players.

Sean, could you elaborate? My impression was that overall the work was a bit less for players too.

After defending the new system (blind) for months and months that it's not going to like World of Warcraft, he read the book and came away saying that it is exactly like World of Warcraft, except that in WoW, the computer keeps track of all the math and everything for everybody.

That's a question a lot of people seem caught up on. I've never played WoW myself (I've played Warcraft I-III, but that's it). I imagine that the designers would've got some ideas from that genre, I understand that maintaining balance is a long-standing concern for MMORPGs.

That said, I think this more or less has the same origin as the 'tactical minis' impression. The designers are using game design theory to address combat. That means both 4E and WoW (for instance) evolved from a D&D place into a niche with pretty similar concerns. (I see the tactical wargame analogy more clearly, as that's what I'm used to.) Even if the designers had never cracked open a MMORPG, there'd be some convergence, for pretty much the same reason that the thylacine looks much like a wolf (ok, now this is really what I'm used to).

The key differences, I believe, are a more meaningful experience out of combat, the ability of PCs to improvise, and the existence of a GM. (And role-play, but I figure that's a given.) Of course, these are genre differences, and would apply to any other RPG too.

He said the game is very well balanced for the most part across the board. However, he's now reversed his position on game balance, and has decided that, at least as far as the form it took in 4e, game balance is actually a crappy way to make an RPG. Everything comes across as SAME. The amount of variation and flavor between characters (or lack thereof) he found to be very off putting.

This is something that I understand differs between reading and playing (once I've actually tried running a game, I'll report further). The architecture for each class is the same, but their particular abilities play rather differently in combat, depending on their role (you wouldn't mistake a ranger for a fighter, for instance). One thing I'm not clear on is if classes built to fill the same role will feel that different.

He was also very WTF??? about the one primary exception to game balance (as far as base classes go) -- the rogue. In 3.5 it was the CODzilla, in 4e it seems to be the roguezilla.

Which abilities does he think are overpowered? I haven't heard that one concerning the rogue before. I have heard of one ability that seems potentially overpowered, but it's in the ranger's list - Blade Cascade, which lets you keep attacking until you miss. If you can find ways to push your attack mod through the roof, even for one round, then this could become simply ridiculous. (I plan a house rule that each subsequent attack gets a -1 cumulative penalty to hit.)

Of course, I can only elaborate to a limited extent, with this all being second hand:

For his dislikes, he starts right in by saying that a lot of the work that has been removed from the DM has been transfered to the players.

Sean, could you elaborate? My impression was that overall the work was a bit less for players too.

This is one of the places where I cannot elaborate. He just didn't say much more than that, so I can't really fill in the blanks.

That's a question a lot of people seem caught up on. I've never played WoW myself (I've played Warcraft I-III, but that's it). I imagine that the designers would've got some ideas from that genre, I understand that maintaining balance is a long-standing concern for MMORPGs.

I too am not really a MMORPG player, so I can't speak with authority on this, but there were some specific party actions (again, can't really elaborate here) that were direct correlations to certain kinds of actions in WoW.

This is something that I understand differs between reading and playing (once I've actually tried running a game, I'll report further).

He was speaking as someone who had run Keep on the Shadowfell three times to three TPKs.

The architecture for each class is the same, but their particular abilities play rather differently in combat, depending on their role (you wouldn't mistake a ranger for a fighter, for instance). One thing I'm not clear on is if classes built to fill the same role will feel that different.

I think it was less that all the classes feel exactly alike (i.e. that a fighter feels a cleric) but more that every fighter is going to feel like every other fighter, and every cleric is going to feel like every other cleric.

At least, that's sort of the impression I got. Though he did also seem to feel that there was a much of a sameness between classes, too.

Which abilities does he think are overpowered? I haven't heard that one concerning the rogue before.

The one thing he mentioned (though he seemed to indicate there were others) was the rogue push ability. He said it was probably the single most useful (and most absurd and un-D&D-like) ability displayed in the games he'd run.

game balance is actually a crappy way to make an RPG.

A WORLD of yes.

And I think that's kind of the WoW comparison. Game balance is crucial in PvP games, because you don't want one super-weapon that will let one player win if he gets it first.

In WoW, like in Diablo or Sacred or whatever, your character's abilities reside within the character class, and they are all balanced against each other. You can't pay to suck by picking the wrong race/skill combo at the start.

This is great for a game run by a computer, or a game where the players want exactly the predictable level of challenge. I like it there, much as I like it in boardgames. I don't like it in RPGs. I want my RPG to be more RP than G, I guess. I want the GM to be able to say "this is an Aragon-fighting-orcs-at-Amon-Hen" fight when it's narratively appropriate, and "this is Gandalf vs Balrog" when that's appropriate.

Anyway, our boxed set arrived today, and the DH is off reading them now. I will check them out this evening.

Oh, the roguezilla stuff is also from computer games I think. They're going for special moves, some wuxia supermove stuff. If you don't want dwarves doing spinning jumping headkicks of doom, you're kind of out of luck with 4E. But if you want snazzy fun combat options, then there you are.

Manny just sent the following email about 4e to our group:

I talked a bit about 4e in the last game, but I was wondering if anyone else has gotten a chance to read through the 4e books?

It's funny because I'm kind of upset about the opposite shit than I would have expected. But looking at the system as a whole, it's pretty solid where 3.0 has become a cluster fuck of options. While there are a bunch of powers and abilities that i would classify as "pointless" I can see the intent: to make the game interesting despite the fact that it doesn't get all that different as you level. For example (I'm making up the names), they could have just said at 11th level all your Daily powers become Encounter powers; instead they give you Whirlwind of Steel as an encounter at 11th, this does the same shit as your daily Spinning Strike, and you can retrain Spinning Strike or have two attacks that hit everyone engaged with you. There are slight differences in the powers, but nothing so dramatic as Whirlwind does twice the damage, more likely it also let's you shift 2 squares before you attack. Now, I would rather they just fucking made it simple and let powers level up as your character does, but I'm a seasoned pro and I don't need all the flavor shit. They are playing that aspect up for the video game & acting crowd that might jump in.

The problem really surfaces when you realize the party never gets that much more powerful, they just get more options, but the monsters get nasty as fuck. Options are cool and interesting, but when you're doing 2d8+3 at 12th level and whittling down 230 HPs... who is having any fun? The modules tend to go pretty heavy handed, and now that I looked at the DMG I can easily see where they went overboard. The encounters don't need to be so brutal to be fun, and the DMG does cover that... obviously the guys making modules are just sadistic fucks. But there is a disconnect between PCs and Monsters, and between using your powers in combat vs. dragging out a fight. It will take some time to see if the rules play out as is, or to come up with options for upping the ante with house rules. Two simple rules would be to give all Encounter powers a recharge time (or a way to regain them, even if it means taking a turn to refocus) and most Daily powers should be Reliable (meaning they are only wasted if they hit).

The main thing people are complaining about are the multi-classing rules, and in truth it kinda bugs me too. I think it's mostly because 3e was such a multiclass whore-fest that this is too much of a radical departure. I think it could use a tweak or two, but mostly because I think multi-classing makes creating characters more fun (once you have done the basic characters to death). The problem in this system, is that powers tend to DEPEND on your class, and don't play well with other classes. If that caveat can be fixed, I see no reason why the system they set up wouldn't work. In fact, the Paragon Paths almost demand some cross class pollination for the sake of realism (ie. why would a wizard suddenly get to become a Battlemage Paragon without at least engaging in melee once in a while?).

I love the Monster Manual, it is set-up beautifully, making encounters is simple. Minions rule and we should come up with something like it for our 3.5 game(s).

The DMG has about 6 pages in it that are worth owning, and that really pisses me off (it's basically full of shit telling you how you can do whatever you want and how to have imagination).

They are playing that aspect up for the video game & acting crowd that might jump in.

I'm not sure I believe this will happen.

Just read the PHB, and I have a totally silly quibble: "Warlock" is a gendered term. Whereas I don't have a cognitive problem with a female rogue or a male rogue, a female fighter or a male fighter, saying female warlock makes me go o.O

Oddly, "female warlord" doesn't bother me.

Oh, and I disagree with ditching LE as an alignment. What were the Nazis if not LE? But I like Unaligned.

The MM is pretty cool, and it has Pete art!

but when you're doing 2d8+3 at 12th level and whittling down 230 HPs

But it's OK! Because if you have to stop playing when you still have 60 HPs to go, you can take a photo of the battlemat with your digital camera.

I guarantee you that my players are going to start doing that mid-battle, then if it goes poorly, ask to restart from their last save point and show me the photo.

::knocks and is sorry to interrupt::

if billytea is around, I'm trying to fix a video chat issue w/ my sister in Auckland ... we don't know if the problem is all oogle, no cash, or just us being boneheads.

eeee. it was just boneheads! I get to vid w/ my sister!!! eee.

and now I return you to the gaming thread.