Thoughts on 4e

Fourth edition is almost upon us - only four more months until the beast rears its ugly head.

It is predicted that mechanical information will begin to trickle down from WotC about this time. I am trying to keep tabs on all the information coming down the tubes; rather than regurgitate that information here, I'm going to try to store my current considerations for 4e here. Hopefully it will serve as a record of my thoughts and plans for how to deal with 4e, when the time comes.

Power Sources

One of the big deals in 4e is the idea of "power sources." Nobody is really sure what this means, but there are three of them confirmed - arcane, divine, and martial. An interesting premise is that each power source will behave differently - not just grant their users different abilities, but actually be mechanically different.

Clearly, this would be a great boon for Trinity, and a solid reason to convert. If each power source is easily differentiable, then the differences between the nine forces can be better reinforced. As is, some of them seem somewhat muddled. With a "mechanics reinforce the flavor" philosophy, these divisions could be made razor-sharp, as they should be.

Class Roles

Each class has a role, defined by their job in a combat situation. So far, we have: the striker; the controller; the defender; and the leader. These distinctions are useful for new players, and they make a class's purpose more defined. However, adapting the melee class theory to this system may be difficult, if not downright impossible.

Gamist v. Simulationist

4e seems to be headed the "gamist" path, rather than the "simulationist" path. Gamism takes the path that it is first and foremost a game, meaning that the game is made balanced without in-game-world repercussions considered; whereas simulationism takes the route that the gameworld should be treated as a "living" setting, and the mechanics need to be consistent across the board. From these descriptions, it should be rather clear that I am biased towards simulationism.

As I mentioned, 4e is heading the "gamist" route. That means that (1) monsters will not have any abilities not directly related to combat, and (2) that NPCs will not have normal classes, but will instead be given ad hoc abilities to make them appropriate encounters. The first point can be overlooked, with some work, but the second is a massive blow to the simulationist view. As such, at least that part of the system will need consideration.

Learners and Monsters

A rather niche note, but important - the way monsters are written up in 4e, they seem to all be given rather unique abilities. As such, the learner class will have a definite niche and use.