Today I listened to the latest D&D podcast – somehow I was not convinced. I’m not convinced monsters will be easier to pick (somehow that has never been much of a problem for me), I don’t think monsters will be easier to run (they do mention roles like skirmisher or controller, but I don’t see how that is going to make the monster easier to *run*), I don’t think the monsters will be more interesting (they mention that they want to focus on providing the right mechanics to the fluff, eg. fighting as a pack for Gnolls – but they fail to dispell my suspicion that this will make the monsters harder to run), and finally the “test” at the end resulted in some weird monster mixes that I’d never use together (owlbear, quickling, and satyr!?).
I think that for the moment I’ll continue playing 3rd ed. by the book, I’ll plan on sticking with 3rd ed., and I’ll think of a *systematic collection of house rules* to use for future games. A page on this site where I’ll put the rule, and a link supporting the decision. And mostly I’ll be looking for stuff to leave out.
#RPG #thoughts
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
Sounds to me a bit like the DnD equivalent of Vista.
– Marco 2007-10-11 18:45 UTC
---
I agree with Marco. We’re already hearing phrases like “synergy of technologies” creep into the designers’s blogs. *sigh*.
It’s all coming across as just a little too over-engineered to me. Fun has left the building.
– greywulf 2007-10-12 10:19 UTC
---
Wasn’t that one of the main criticisms aimed at 3rd ed. – overengineering? With all the rules for monster building, encounter levels and all that, it certainly seemed overengineered to me... As far as I can tell, there’s no significant benefit of challenge rating and encounter levels over looking at hit dice and winging it... 😄 So they’re fixing a part of the game I’ve been more or less ignoring anyway when I wrote my own stuff. And I cannot imagine professional adventure writers feeling more bound by the recommendations than other people. The purpose of those recommendations was – I think – to speed up adventure writing. And it did not do that for me, thus I feel like the effort is spent in the wrong place. As far as I am concerned, they should concentrate on *taking stuff away*. Less abilities per monster, less spells per monster, less rules for combat (scrap half the grappling rules, unify grappling, tripping, disarming and sundering), less dice rolling (spell resistance, concealment, invisibility, saving throws), less rules for movement. I still like this passage in the 2nd ed. Player’s Handbook: “Since a round is roughly a minute long, it should be easy for a character to move just about anywhere he wants during the course of the round.” – p. 96. (Not that I’m suggesting that the 2nd ed. was always better.)
I *really* need to write a page on my suggested houserules. If only I knew somebody who had already done all the work for me...
I just read Our first look at 4e stats! by Mike Hensley. It changes a few things. Perhaps the way that saves are no longer a bonus but a target will in fact get rid of a number. I guess the DM is no longer assigning both a DC and granting a circumstance modifier. This is something which always irritated me. Similarly, when you roll your dice you always attack. Right now, if you attack and cast a spell, then the defender gets to roll. If you attack and wield a weapon, then the attacker gets to roll. This is a similar improvement like the change to AC from 2nd ed. to 3rd ed.
Also note Jonathan Drain’s thoughts on the leaked 4e stats.
Jonathan Drain’s thoughts on the leaked 4e stats
– Alex Schroeder 2007-10-12
---
I keep swinging back and forth over 4E; for every one thing I hear about it that I don’t like, there’s another thing which I do. The 4e stats look fantastic to me overall though - which is great! 😄
The only downer I can see is the use of Squares as a unit of measurement, rather than giving real-world units. That was inevitable though, but still might only be because of the limited space on the card. We’ll see.
– greywulf 2007-10-15 15:58 UTC