I like your way of thinking! I am happy with 3.5. I just don't get why 4e is coming out so soon after 3.5 and the fact that it is so different. The only thing I can think of is the $ making aspect.Personally, I don't care. At this point, I am refusing to buy based on principle. I have spent a lot of money on 3 and 3.5. I have enough material to last me a VERY long time. I used to be one to keep up with the newest rules version, but I have since stopped caring. 3.5 is a good, robust system and any issues I have with it I can fix with house rules. JMHO.
Feats are like a two edged sword. On one hand they give new players something to focus their abilities on so they don't feel like their ideas are stupid and a waist everyones time. You know what I mean new players mostly just sit there slack jawed with a blank stare in their faces, hardly involved in the game at all. Feats are a great tool to get new players involved in the game. But unfortunately they also require more rules for the DM to memorize. It would be better if they got rid of most of the classes and cut it down to just the four basic classes, fighter, wizard, priest, and rogue, while at the same time keeping the feats. By reducing the number of classes they would also be reducing the number of feats. Minitures are great, but they are coast prohibitive and require a lot of space. I think they should be left to the D&D grog-nards (if there is such a thing). I think they look outstanding, but they don't do anything to facilitate game play. I feel that they do nothing but make the game LOOK good. I hope 4th edition is real good, but I think the game has to many rules to make players think they can try anything. One of the best things about role playing is when players feel that the only limitation is their own imagination. Excessive rules limit the players ability to use their imagination. The less rules the better. The best rule ever written for a role playing game is "the only rule is that there no rules".I think that there is no reason to believe that 4th edition D&D will not focus on miniture use and feats, so I plan on getting only the 4th edition DMG and Monster Manual, and use these to supplement my house rules, and to inspire my sword and sorcery settings.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the principles of capitalism as well as the next guy. My point is instead of coming out with a new rules system that obsoletes everything thousands of people have bought over the last 10 years and discontinuing releases under said rules system, why not innovate a new game, and continue to come out with quality expansions under the existing rule system? That way, you expand your market share into a new niche (for you anyway) and customers don't get disenfranchised by having to completely update the system to use new suppliments for their campaigns.Look, if they don't sell books they go out of business, it's just that simple. And games like World of Warcraft have put a huge dent in the profits of tabletop RPG companies, and they know it.
If they don't do something to stay relevant and grab the attention of newer gamers, D&D will simply fade away. They can't make money by charging monthly fees like WoW, and the exponential rate at which printing costs have risen over the last decade has been a nightmare for publishers of tabletop products.
So either they innovate and create new products that will keep D&D relevant, or they accept defeat at the hands of Wii, Xbox, and Wow. If they create quality products, I suspect people will buy them. If they don't, well, they won't.
Agreed!Don't get me wrong, I understand the principles of capitalism as well as the next guy. My point is instead of coming out with a new rules system that obsoletes everything thousands of people have bought over the last 10 years and discontinuing releases under said rules system, why not innovate a new game, and continue to come out with quality expansions under the existing rule system? That way, you expand your market share into a new niche (for you anyway) and customers don't get disenfranchised by having to completely update the system to use new suppliments for their campaigns.
Thanks for the review. I haven't looked 4E over yet. Anyone else have an AAR on 4E?I must admit I have only skimmed over the books so far, but I kinda like the new system.
It is admittedly completly different from 3.5 I've been playing so far, but I think my groups and me will sooner or later take a look into it and then play a little of both editions simultanously.
What is obvious with ed4 so far are the steps taken by Wizards to make D&D more compatible with computer based games, wich isn't neccessarily a bad thing. Especially changing the way magic works is (as far as I understzood it until now) now a little bit more logical then the spells per day we had before. Apart from that I think the system is also a little easier to understand for new players, but well I didn't think the old one was overly hard...
I think it's more appropriate to compare the release date for this (2008) to the release date for 3.0 (2000), since the fact that there even is a 3.5 is basically an admission of problems with its ancestor. But that doesn't void your point, since even by that standard, the time lapse of 8 years is shorter than with the previous updates (about 11 years each for 1st => 2nd and 2nd => 3rd).But to slap a new official edition out so soon after 3.5 appeared seems to be a grab at the big bucks (or admitting 3.5 sucked).