D&D 4e thoughts so far

[lauraredcloud]

I mean, I don't know that much about D&D. I'm the guy who's always turning to the other players and asking "What do I roll for this?" or "What do I do to get my Fortitude?" or "How many feats do I get and which ones should I take?" But from my own shallow understanding and limited experience, here's my take on 4th edition so far.

The Good

• Powers. Every class now has powers: for the spellcasters, they're spells; for the fighters, they're special attacks, etc. This makes all the classes more "samey" to play, I suppose, which might upset some people, but I like it. I've never wanted to play a spellcaster because it seemed so complicated, all those spells and rules to remember, but I could see myself doing it, since playing any character gets you used to the system. I also have no philosophical problem with the classes being samey, mechanics-wise. This isn't a computer game. You have the power to make your character act different from other characters, both of other classes and his own.
  
  
• Healing surges. All the classes can in at least some limited way heal themselves, so it's no longer vital to have a cleric in your party. More versatility to party makeup means more different kinds of games you can play (i.e. doing something a little silly isn't just a horrible idea because you'll die if you don't use the Standard Party Makeup) and more people getting to play the character they want. Not that playing a cleric is necessarily bad or unfun (I actually haven't played one so I can't say, and all the classes now are samey so it doesn't matter, right?), but people should choose it because they want it and they have an idea for it, not because the party lacks one and they haven't written up a character yet.
  
  
• Streamlined skills. There were just too many before, and the way they've grouped them together makes sense. Perception checks make much more sense than everyone always rolling both "spot" and "listen" all the time and me being able to make a rogue who's good at "search" but crap at "spot". (Passive checks for perception and insight also make a lot of sense--less work and less unavoidable hint-dropping by the DM!)
  
  I'll admit thought that even though I'm wholly in support of the new system I still use the vocabulary of the 3/3.5 skill set. The sheer number and specificity of the different skills you had to account for may have been a little ridiculous, but the terminology is useful, and I still say "I sense motive" when I mean I make an insight check to see if he's lying (I don't make it; my WIS is -2.)
  
  
• Challenge system for combat. I've never DM'd so this is second-hand but my DM loves it. He says it's a lot easier to set up battles so he can spend more time on the story. I'm all for that!
  
  
• Diagonals count as one square of movement not two. Thank you.

The Bad

• I'm not sold on the new core races. Granted, I'm pretty prejudiced against new things to start. I'm just not sure what you could add that would have the same level of basic fantasy necessariness as humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, and orcs. Arguably D&D was instrumental in making these races seem like the Big Five, but that doesn't mean they have the power to make any other race seem as instrumental and base-level.
  
  For one thing, they've run out of races that are in Lord of the Rings. I feel like when you run out of races in Lord of the Rings you should maybe stop. It's possible to add a few others from longstanding myth and legend of humankind. I have no beef with gnomes, for example. I wouldn't mind if they made some more of the well-known monsters playable (kobolds!)
  
  The new races they've added instead are dragonborn and tieflings. Also, they've split the elves into three subgroups.
  
  Dragonborn are OK - I feel like they're retreading some of the same ground as orcs in that they're the big monster-creature, but they're less violent and more honorable. As Anna pointed out, they're Klingons. I have no problem with Klingons. Also, "dragonborn" isn't a well-known simple word like "elf," but it's at least based on something well-known and basic in the collective unconscious: dragons. People love dragons!
  
  My real problem is with tieflings. Who has ever heard of a tiefling? The spellchecker doesn't think it's a real word. Core races should already be in the spellchecker. The name should give you some kind of clue about what it is. I have to look this up to figure it out.
  
  Okay, Wikipedia says they are a "non-human race whose human ancestors made a bargain with devils to increase their power." Lame. They look kind of devilish (horns) and have a "dark past to overcome." Hey, know what you should play if you want to have a dark past to overcome? ANY OF THE RACES. WRITE A BACKSTORY. Shee.
  
  Next, the elves. You've got your regular elves, your Drow (dark-elves; this is the same as previous editions but I always thought it was kind of dumb), and the dumbest of all, Eladrin, the high-elves, who can teleport at will. A playable race can teleport at will! LAAAAME.
  
  
• Alignment overhaul. You can now only be Good, Lawful Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, or Unaligned. Why even bother with Law and Chaos, or even having alignments at all, at this point? What exactly is the distinction between Good and Lawful Good, or Evil and Chaotic Evil, and why should I care?
  
  Dammit, the two scales of Lawful vs. Chaotic and Good vs. Evil were INTERESTING. They made SENSE to me. It acknowledged that there's a distinction between law and good, between chaos and evil! That's important! That's powerful! That leads to interesting conflict and moral grey areas both between and within characters!
  
  Sure, people had trouble playing to alignment, and I don't mind getting rid of it altogether--which would actually acknowledge MORE moral complexity (nobody has to declare they're good or evil, people act the way they act), but this way it's just black and white and limited and stupid.
  
  Chaotic Good! That's what my rogue IS! It's very descriptive of him! It's a helpful guide in role-playing! And I always fill my backstories with tons of Lawful Evil characters, because they make excellent socially acceptable and subtly menacing villains. Come on guys. Way to take out the only alignments that made the alignment system interesting and useful.
  
  
• Rapier not class weapon for rogues. I had to take a feat!

Comments

[anthemyst.livejournal.com]

Spock is CLEARLY overcompensating.

[laura-redcloud.livejournal.com]

It's true, I sometimes feel about Spock the way I feel about Data: they're both protesting way too much in the "As you know, I have no emotions, and therefore cannot grieve/comfort you/commit to a monogamous relationship/pick you up at the airport" department.