I have a confession to make: I actually (gasp!) LIKE the "fluff" and don't find it boring... to me these new Planes sound interesting, even if they are amalgams of some of the previous Planes (there's even a place called Arborea... now WHERE have I heard that name before?) I don't see it as a either/or thing ("Either you like Planescape or 4E, but not both")... yes, it sucks that the Great Wheel is gone from 4E, but hopefully the new Manual of the Planes will have Plane-building rules that can be used to put it right BACK, or else I'll house-rule it... I wonder whether classes like Monk, Barbarian, etc... will have required alignments anymore? I hope NOT! I'ts boring to have every single Monk automatically be Lawful, or every Barbarian Chaotic... too predictable!
Anything you actually LIKE about 4E?
Anything I like about 4E?
....
....
....
Um... ... ... I guess some of the artwork is cool. ... ... Um... ... Well admittedly I don't actually know too terribly much about it, so maybe there are some things I haven't heard of yet. :|
Anime Fan, from the last half-dozen topics that you started, I'm beginning to suspect that you are a WotC employee in disguise that is secretly trying to raise hype about 4e. 
From what I gather, 4e is too hack&slashee. If I wanted that, I'd just play an MMORPG. It would be almost the same thing except a computer rolls the dice for me and I get to see purty graphics. That said, I do like the idea of the Feywild. Aside from that...? Hmm... oh, I know. I like that little flash animation with the gnome!
Seconding Iavas. And adding that it might give me new ideas rule-wise.
Which, incidently, you now have to be signed into DND insider to view ...
When TSR tried to get too mainstreamy and greedy, their core support got mad, and they got bought out 'cause they were poor. Just wait. It'll take longer this time, but WOTC and Hasbro are digging themselves into a hole. When they do, we can just laugh and hope the next company who owns the rights to D&D is smarter.
What do I like about 4e? Pretty much everything besides the fluff.
I'm still waiting to see any rules on paper. :-/
TSR went mainstreamy?
Sorry, conspiracy theorists, I'm not working for WOTC... and I DON'T like every single change they made (I'd have kept the Great Wheel, and maybe had those new Planes exist in a separate Cosmology, like in the case of Ebberon!) I think they ought to have taken all the fluff that they're putting in the core rulebooks and made a new campaign setting with it (with its own separate book, as per the Forgotten Realms). Planescape and Greyhawk should've stayed as the default campaign settings; Planescape for obvious reasons, and Greyhawk just for the fact that half of the spells and magic items are named for someone from there! Well, I'll shut up about it until the books actually come up, then I'll give you my opinion...
What I like about the Planar Changes.
1. The Shadowfell is cooler than the Plane of Shadow.
2. Asmodeus is a greater god: About time his plan succeeded.
3. Evil Angels: I like that every god gets Angelic servants.
4. Gods are beatable: A favorite of mine.
The funny thing about Evil Angels was that before 3.5 said the Aasimon were Angels, I used have Angel as a term to refer collectively to the Aasimon, Archons, Guardinals, Eladrin, Slaad, Modron, Rilmani, Tanar'ri, Baatezu, Gehreleths and Yugoloths.
Anyone have links to some of the better known/guessed/interesting 4e content? (I could probably search for it, but I'm guessing some people on this site are a lot more familiar with said links.)
Edit: Having that error again... *sigh*
Why, pray tell? I mean, if the gm is running a "destroy god x" campaign, then he is going to incorporate a story element which will allow the pcs to do just that - assuming they manage to acquire it. (whatever it might be) So, pcs could already kill gods.
What is the point in making pcs powerful enough to beat up Zeus for his lunch money? How does this improve the story? Really, if a gm wanted players to be able to defeat gods in his campaign setting, then he would have already made it possible .... if the gm does not like this, then he will disallow it (and the gm is always permitted to disallow rules he doesn't like) - thus, nothing changes.
Here: http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e
On the left hand side of the page are links to all the news/info/whatever items released by Wizards. The main body of the page summarizes everything known about 4th Ed to date. You'll have to page down a bit, as release info/cover pictures come first.
Why, pray tell? I mean, if the gm is running a "destroy god x" campaign, then he is going to incorporate a story element which will allow the pcs to do just that - assuming they manage to acquire it. (whatever it might be) So, pcs could already kill gods.
What is the point in making pcs powerful enough to beat up Zeus for his lunch money? How does this improve the story? Really, if a gm wanted players to be able to defeat gods in his campaign setting, then he would have already made it possible .... if the gm does not like this, then he will disallow it (and the gm is always permitted to disallow rules he doesn't like) - thus, nothing changes.
I don't like the idea of PCs just wandering around and beating up random Gods. But it at least seems that some of the 4e designers agree with that. They state that killing a God should still be a special campaign thing, that requires special things done related to plot, for that to happen.
Though I'm still skeptical about what they're doing with that.
So many players did that back in the 1e days. 
"Hey, let's go through Deities & Demigods and see which ones have the best loot!"
One thing I like is that they're at least trying to develop a social-encounter mechanic, and trying to have a balance between pure talking and dice-rolls for such a system. Though I'm really skeptical if it'll be the right balance between role-playing and dice rolls (and yes I know it's different with every group to what they prefer). In fact it's perhaps the one thing they've mentioned but kept under wraps, since proponents from either side may have a problem with it.
On the left hand side of the page are links to all the news/info/whatever items released by Wizards. The main body of the page summarizes everything known about 4th Ed to date. You'll have to page down a bit, as release info/cover pictures come first.
Hey, thanks!
OK, two things that I really like already:
1) Looks like a given class always gets the same number of HP per level (assuming a particular CON score, maybe). That means you don't have to balance an encounter for one fighter who got 10 HP that level, and a second fighter who only got 1 HP (ouch) for that level. This is a GOOD thing.
2) I agree that binary "save or die" effects are generally just a bad idea. And D&D traditionally has had a lot of those.
I'm very excited about the Feywild, actually, which sounds super cool. Proud sidhe lords (I refuse to call them eladrins) in magical towers, formori kings in the depths below. Fey have been a very marginal element in D&D before, but now seem poised to be as important as outsiders.
I don't agree that the Shadowfell is cooler than the Plane of Shadow, but it doesn't seem worse. We'll see what they do with it, I guess. The Plane of Shadow has been closely linked to the Negative Energy Plane before, by Wolfgang Baur in his "ghouls" series.
There are, I'm almost ashamed to admit, some real benefits in conflating Limbo, the Ethereal Plane, and the Inner Planes together in one giant mess. It's long been a problem that people have confused Limbo and the Ethereal, referring to Limbo as the Plane of Potential, and even I used to draw the Ethereal Plane, with demiplanes forming from the mists, in a way that looked suspiciously like the random matter forming and dissolving in Limbo. Plus, there's even the Control skill in the Planewalker PSCS usable in the Ethereal as well as Limbo.
Dipping the Abyss in that mess fits with the whole Wind Dukes of Aaqa/obyrith dynamic (explaining why an Inner Planar race is at war with an Outer Planar one) but screws up too many other things for me to like it. For example, there's no reason for demons to be made from mortal souls anymore. So not that part so much.
I do have a particular love for the Astral Plane, in its grand old 1e/2e sense, and would not want its nature (or inhabitants) to be messed with too much.
Generally I like the planes the way they are (in 2E PS) and certainly don't want to see the Astral lumped in with everything else.
As for the Limbo/Ethereal thing ... I can't recall last time I used either plane ... never really cared for either one that much - not sure why.
The way I figure it, the Feywild should be a slightly positive-dominant plane and the Shadowfell a slightly negative-dominant plane, thus making them the "links" between the Material Plane and the Energy Planes.
Also, the Feywild should pretty much replace the Beastlands. I never really thought the Beastlands fit into its assigned place on the Great Wheel. Why should all those intelligent animals be good with chaotic tendencies? Why shouldn't most of them be neutral?
Of course, then, we'd need to replace it with something else to make the Great Wheel complete again. Any ideas?
Does little or nothing count something a person can like? 
I quite agree.
The Feywild and the Beastlands are very different in tone - whimsical, uncanny faeries are not compatible in flavor with the idealized, archetypal animals of the Beastlands. If you want to move the Beastlands, that's one thing, but merging it with the Feywild would make both planes poorer, less distinct places. There's more than enough room in the multiverse for both. In Eberron, the equivalent planes are Lammania (nature unbounded, basically a neutral version of the Beastlands) and Thelanis, the Faerie Court. They're quite distinctive.
Seeing the Beastlands as part of the Upper Planes requires accepting that the Upper Planes represent an idealized version of the material world - not necessarily safe or peaceful, and certainly not vegetarian, but the way the powers of the Upper Planes intend the world to be. Sometimes stressful, a place where learning and conflict takes place, but pure and innocent, without the taint of sin or shame. While the humanoid souls that become petitioners there are all good-aligned, the ordinary animals need not be.
While I don't believe it was ever spelled out in Planescape, I was under the impression that the Beastlands represented the happy-tree huggy-kid's show-noble savage version of nature, the Outlands had areas representing the neutral view of nature, and Carceri had areas representing the negative view of nature (the Varath (can't spell it) is an example of an evil animal living on Carceri. The Garden of Malice is an example of malicious plantlife). You could argue that Bytopia and Arcadia both represented lawful views of nature.
Vaath. Malar's realm is another great example of evil nature in Carceri, along with razorvine, bloodthorn, and other malevolent plants that thrive there.
I agree with your analysis completely.
O.k. , I'll say one more thing I like about 4E... the (apparent) end of energy-drain effects that lower ability scores (thus forcing the player to recalculate a bunch of stuff). Likewise with poisons... I don't like having to do a lot of math while playing the game, other than lowering hp when a character or monster gets hit, etc... also I hate the rule that says any use of negative energy is evil, while the Negative Energy Plane itself is not... what gives THERE?!? 
But surely that the negative material plane gives rise to all evil?
There's actually amodestly complex and someone counter-intuitive explanation for why neither the negative energy plane or negative energy are themselves evil but dumping them into other places where the negative and positive energies are normally in balance (like say, the Prime) is because this is.
Having run Star Wars Saga edition, which incorporates at least some of the mechanics that will end p being in 4e, there are a few things worth liking of course. Though frankly, I worry that, by creating the adjustments in that order WotC has confused what works for Star Wars with what works for D&D, and these are not the same. Also, in Star Wars, they had no power to conduct any setting changes.
The new skills system is one thing I believe is preferable, though it has some problems at low levels (having +14 at first level in something is quite possible) but it actualy allows characters some more flexibility and at least reduces some of the huge imbalances, like 1st level rogues Bluffing 20th level wizards more or less at will, that the 3e system created.
I can't support any of the 'fluff' changes though, not really, since it all seems very unnecessary and it also chops off the vast sea of old source books that D&D used to float upon. Discarding 30+ years worth of material (which is what nuking the multiverse really does) means the new system won't have such a deep foundation to build upon. 4e will be far more of a new game entirely instead of just a new edition. This seems particularly risky as Demons, Devils, and other planar creatures continue to get more and more time (recall that, in 2e, outside of planescape fiends hardly ever showed up and were barely entries in the core monster books, in 3e the Outsider template is among the most common of all and the Prime is postiviely bursting with planar messes continuing this with a brand new cosmoloy seems likely to confuse players in many ways).
You know, I'd personnaly rather Fey stay amarginal element in D&D, because of Elves. As long as Elves are a humanoid, normalized race, and not fey, it makes everything 'fey' ring rather false to me, because shouldn't elves be fey? this sort of disconnect between the fey who are 'just like everybody else' and those that aren't has always seemed to reduce the viability of fey-based ideas in D&D.
They are in 4e. Gnomes might be fey, too. I think fey will be an "origin" rather than a creature type, though, like they did with aberration. Aberration isn't a creature type anymore either, I mean.
It appears that at least some of the named Planes (or areas thereof) will survive into the 4E cosmology; the Abyss and the Nine Hells are explicitly called out, and mention is made of Mount Celestia and Arborea also... has anybody heard mention of any other familar names to appear in the new edition? Even though they're not using the Great Wheel, certain areas from that cosmology seem to have made it into the new version, perhaps as locations in the Astral Sea.
alignments
Best. Post. Ever.
What alignments? Or is that what you mean?
Chaotic Evil apparently still exists as an alignment if you go by the preview of the Rogue Class.
Are you sure? The recent release of the stats for the "Kobold Skirmisher" seemed to confirm that they had indeed done away with law and chaos, as it stated it's alignment as "Evil." What did this Rogue Class info say?
The Rogue class write-up has the words "chaotic" and "evil" following each other, under the Religion part.
Is the quote in question.
I found it amusing in this article on DMing 4e that the writer realized you could go up an experience level without ever swinging a sword (though honestly I prefer to mix things up). It's something that I think most DMs here have been working with way before 4e, but it's interesting to see that this is reiterated.
Pandemonium's been mentioned.
I'm actually really looking forward to 4e - in fact it's what's got me lurking the boards and thinking about playing again after several years of my books gathering dust. Of course, I'll completely ignore any of the new fluff that contradicts Planescape fluff, and I may well tweak a few mechanics, but from what's been revealed so far, the actual basics of running a game will be easier both for the DM and the player. Not only that but there does seem to be an emphasis on the non-combat elements of D&D that seemed to be missing from 3rd and 3.5 edition material. Now the roleplaying can shine through and lengthy sessions of book consultation, dice rolling and rules-lawyering won't have to occur every time some hotheaded berk decides to reach for his blade instead of his wits.
I keep seeing people saying that there's a new emphasis on non-combat encounters, but I don't get where that idea comes from. Everything I've seen so far seems to contradict that, and instead indicate that straight hack and slash is the only play style 4e is taking into account. Where is this idea coming from?
Someone posted that a 4e character of any class will be good at both combat and non-combat skills, without having to feel forced to optimize himself for hack and slash at the cost of roleplaying.
For example, a 3e warrior only has 2 skill points per level. They can't DO a huge amount of stuff out of combat. Compare to a bard, who has very good out-of-combat skills but is regarded by some as a weak class. In current 3e, if you take ranks in say, Diplomacy or Knowledge skills, those points come straight out of your potential combat ability.
So what I get from that is that they're making non-combat abilities an afterthought. No class now has any kind of focus on them so there's no need to worry about them.
They've also made some kind of social-interaction encounter system, which they're keeping under pretty tight wraps. It's suposed to involve the entire party in negotiations, with multiple rolls of different types requrired to resolve an encounter. However, we know essentially nothing about how it works, or how it interacts with, well, role playing.
On the contrary, since every class will be good at the non-combat skills, this essentially requires them to worry about them. They still might not get it right, but they have to try.
This complete lack of any detailed information has me worried. I've known game developers to promise all sorts of vague things about how this or that feature will make everything better, you just need to trust them. It usually turns out to be bull. Considering the fact that almost every other change seems to be geared towards enforcing hack and slash game play, I'm going to have to remain skeptical until I see some actual evidence to support their claims.
I'm right there with ya.
Taken as a whole, the 4th Ed marketing has managed to move me from "will buy sight unseen" to "will probably buy, but I want to see it first."
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220431
I think I'll like the PCs classes. I'm also really looking forward to the Feywild, fey are something I don't think were done right in 3.x, and it looks like they're doing much better now.
The new Planar as a whole I think is a step back from the Great Wheel, but I figure I'll probably get some good locations from the deal.
Alignments I think could also do with some loosening, at least as they apply to PC classes, it wasn't really fair that an alignment shift was such a catastrophy for Paladins and Monks and such but no big deal for Wizards and such.