4e / GSL 11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[Ander00]

I'll have to disagree with your first point as well. While your plan doesn't have to take into account the prerequisites for any number of prestige classes, you'll still need to think ahead to meet the prerequisites of feats (something magic items can no longer help you with, and attributes cannot be retrained).

Edit: And of course, many paragon path abilities are also dependant on various ability scores.


cheers

[vagabundo]

@Monkey Boy

Just out of curiousity how many PC's do you have in your group? I've got four and noticed the issue your having.

I have a funny feeling that combat time is inversely proportional to the number of PCs, even with adjusted XP budgets.

[Nebulous]

Originally Posted by Monkey Boy

This is my hang up as well and is almost a deal breaker. The fights have taken too long and are boring the hell out of me. Fighting goblins shouldn't take this long! I will be implementing half HP for monsters in my current game, hopefully that will fix things for my group.

I'm going to start adlibbing monster hit points i think, at least near the end of a fight. Some of the battles with little toadsquat goblins really shouldn't be as hard as they are and really can take too long.

[Wednesday Boy]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

No long-term advance planning for PC character development. No longer do players have to worry how precisely to build their characters at first level when they want to take a specific prestige class twelve levels later. Now they can take character advancement one level at a time.

This is the only disagreement I have with your list because, as a few others have mentioned, you have to look down the line when setting your attributes in order to meet some feat prerequisites. It certainly isn't the same level of planning that was needed to meet prerequisites for certain PrCs, but I did have to do a little advanced planning to make sure that my stats would let me take the feats I wanted.

[Crosswind]

Originally Posted by vagabundo

@Monkey Boy

Just out of curiousity how many PC's do you have in your group? I've got four and noticed the issue your having.

I have a funny feeling that combat time is inversely proportional to the number of PCs, even with adjusted XP budgets.

Agree here. Reason's pretty simple: The power of each individual PC grows with each character added, due to synergy. Monsters rarely synergize as well.

Leaders have buffs which affect all the party - the more people, the more bonuses.
The more people there are, the more likely that the rogue will always get sneak attack (I'm in a 7-8 person party. I have not gone a single round without sneak attacking in 9 sessions).
...and that the ranged ranger won't have to ever enter melee.
...and that the defenders will be attacked by multiple enemies
...and that the wizard can catch multiple creatures with his burst spells

etc, etc.

-Cross

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

• No long-term advance planning for PC character development.
• Easier high-level PC creation.
• Fighters are now actually interesting.
• Less-complex high-level spellcasters.
• No class is useless in a specific fight.
• Rituals.
• Minions.
• Easier high-level NPC creation.
• Easier monster creation/modification.
• In-depth discussion on building encounters and monster roles.

By all means, please feel free to debate.

My feeling is that a lot of these things either existed (or potentially existed) in 3e too.

Long term advanced planning was mostly necessary if lots of prestige classes where available and strict prestige class entry requirements were observed. For those using the Unearthed Arcana method of 'tests for entry' it wasn't an issue. That was certainly my preferred option, as I like PCs to be able to grow organically as time goes on, rather than be planned to death.

Easier high level PC creation? I don't really see this. Perhaps for casters, but even then I'm not sure. I'm still finding 4e creation a bit of a pain to get my head around at upper heroic and above levels. How many encounters of which level, how many dailys and utilities of which levels, does he have the ability points to support certain feats and so on.

Fighters are more interesting (and much, much more deadly).

High level spellcasters are certainly less complex, but I don't think that is a positive thing (just my taste)

Rituals were a great idea, but I think they really, really suffer from having too few first level rituals. They should have had at least 10 arcane first level rituals and at least 5 divine 1st level rituals, to give a breadth of choice. Heck, there is enough source material available!

Minions have been used effectively in other games (I first saw them in Bushido) and are pretty optional. They could be used in 3e by just giving certain monsters 1hp as someone else has noted.

Easier high level NPC creation? I don't really see that, for the same reasons as PCs above. Also NPCs and monsters by default have a pretty slim range of stuff they can do - I prefer monsters with a wide range of powers and abilities personally.

In depth discussion of etc - an excellent addition.

For the things that I think they have particularly done well:

• Crits automatically on a 20 for maximum damage.
• Magic items a bit more special (crits and daily powers)
• implements for caster classes equivalent to magic weapons
• Encouraging team work rather than solo glory

Cheers

[TerraDave]

Good list!

I would add: super streamlined d20 system.

The common 1/2 level modifier, simple skill training, consolidated skill list, simplified combat manuevers, unified mechanics for attack "powers"...

This is probably my single favorite change.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is the only disagreement I have with your list because, as a few others have mentioned, you have to look down the line when setting your attributes in order to meet some feat prerequisites. It certainly isn't the same level of planning that was needed to meet prerequisites for certain PrCs, but I did have to do a little advanced planning to make sure that my stats would let me take the feats I wanted.

While I agree that it's not "perfect" yet, I think the problem is far from being as pronounced as in 3E. Sometimes, it was just a matter of the absurd high ability score requirements, but sometimes its also a matter of the several class abilities, spells and feats you had to get.
In 4E, you just need to look at your ability scores. If you pick the standard spread for scores, you should eventually be able to qualify for most feats. The general ability increases at Level 11 and Level 21 certainly make it a lot more easier to get one of this Score 13-requirement feats, and this is what will probably be the ones you want to get most.

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

Easier high level PC creation? I don't really see this. Perhaps for casters, but even then I'm not sure. I'm still finding 4e creation a bit of a pain to get my head around at upper heroic and above levels. How many encounters of which level, how many dailys and utilities of which levels, does he have the ability points to support certain feats and so on.

About the character creation: There are two tables, one in the PHB, and one in the DMG, that list the gains per level. The PHB table is good for advancing, as it notes changes. The DMG table is good for creation at high levels, as it states the absolute numbers. The DMG table is really perfect for character creation at higher levels.

High level spellcasters are certainly less complex, but I don't think that is a positive thing (just my taste)

Well, if it's "reasons why I prefer D&D 4", this is a perfectly valid answer. If it was "reasons why D&D 4 is superior to any other edition", it wouldn't. But then, most things might not be used to say that.
(Heck, I sometimes even enjoyed working out my characters to the last skill point in 3E...)

Minions have been used effectively in other games (I first saw them in Bushido) and are pretty optional. They could be used in 3e by just giving certain monsters 1hp as someone else has noted.

Actually, it's not that easy. Wulf Ratbane once pointed out to me that high level PCs tend to automatically hit (or be hit) with primary attacks. That would be terrible for Minions. You might be able to make some adaptations, though, but they are no longer as simple as in 4E.

[Remathilis]

Just for a random sampling:

As of this post, of the replies to Jurgen's post (including the starter)

4 were positive leaning in their opinion/assessment
7 were negative leaning in their opinion/assessment (this inlcuded Jurgen's what I don't like post)
9 were neutral or didn't give a general impression
4 were mixed nearly evenly or tried a balanced approach (or damned with faint praise)

Just a snapshot of what people are thinking, keep it in mind.

Now, my opinions match Jurgen's so I won't repeat them. My only complaint so far has been WotC inability to get skill challenges to work right and the general incompleteness of the core-rules for certain things (druids & bards in PHB2, Frost Giants in MM2, 90% of the magic item list in Adventure's Vault, etc)

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Olgar Shiverstone

No long-term advance planning for PC character development.

I'm not sure this is true, as stat requirements almost make it more critical that you careful consider future feat and power preferences before you assign stats. Retraining does eliminate a lot of feat planning, admittedly.

The PHBII, or was it DMGII, in 3.5 did have rules for re-training as an optional rule. The problem was that it wasn't an established rule, just an alternate rule, so most DMs dismissed it. Now that 4e made it apart of the regular rules, everyone loves it. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Olgar Shiverstone

No class is useless in a specific fight.

Heck, yes. Best feature of 4E IMO -- plus 4E significantly increased the importance of team tactics, which is a good feature IMO.

I don't think this is always good. I don't like that WOTC has decided to make us forced into a team event. I am speaking mainly of the wizard, but others too. The wizard is now, IMO, so underpowered that they have to be apart of a group or they can't survive. Yes, wizards had a lot of power before so maybe a tone down was in order, but IMO they swung the pendulum the other way a little too far. M

Maybe that is just me, but an interview I am doing for the next issue of Dragon Roots Magazine about what was behind some of the changes to D&D suggests that I am not alone in this regard. Even some of the insiders hint that they might have toned down the wizard a tad too much. Thus, forcing them into a role of cooperation with others.

Don’t get me wrong, I think cooperation is a good thing. It is what D&D should be. However, it should be our choice as player to be cooperative and not forced upon us be definition.

Originally Posted by Olgar Shiverstone

Easier high-level PC creation.

Mostly, yes. I'd argue that it's much easier for high-level spellcasters, and much harder for high-level melee characters.

Eh, not totally sure about that. Yes, it is easier for spellcasters only because there are not a lot of powers out there. Give it a few supplements and it will be just as hard. Non-spellcasting classes just took a huge step into the complex realm for building a high level PC, IMO.

Originally Posted by Olgar Shiverstone

Fighters are now actually interesting.

3E Fighters were interesting too, if you actually took advantage of the range of feats -- orders of magnitude better than prior edition fighters. I'll grant that 4E fighters are now a step more interesting than even their 3E counterparts, though.

I agree with you that the fighters were not dull in 3.5. They only became so when you limited the feat selection to the core books, but even with just those rules, the fighter could make interesting choices. It all really depended on the player.

Also, prestige classes added a lot of flavor to the fighter and that is really something that opened the door for the fighter. Fighters were only as dull as the limits the DM put on them.

Originally Posted by Olgar Shiverstone

Less-complex high-level spellcasters.

Goodness, yes.

I guess, for now.

Originally Posted by Olgar Shiverstone

Rituals.

I like these mechanics, but I'm disappointed with the number, and the fact that rituals have essentially killed the prior "clever use of flexible spells" that you could do. It's fun to play "101 uses for a 1st level spell" -- not quite as fun now.

I think it also sucks that a ritual takes so long to cast and that you need so much gold to cast them. Okay, the low level ones don’t need a lot, but some of the costs of the higher level ones make it very hard to cast, IMO.

Originally Posted by Olgar Shiverstone

Minions.

Again, not a unique-to-4E mechanic. Take almost any 3E monster, reduce to 1 hp = minion.

I agree with that; and really, for me anyway, having a bunch of 2nd or higher level “minions” in 3.5 with a few hit points wasn’t all that hard to deal with. IMO, the only thing that makes the 4e minion different is that they basically capped the ACs of the PCs to within reach of the minions to be effective in hitting them.

Originally Posted by Olgar Shiverstone

Easier high-level NPC creation.

Yes and no. If you weren't anal about having every single spell, feat, and skill point accounted for, high level NPCs in 3E aren't really that hard -- you just put together those items that you need for play and wing the rest.

I am a big fan of winging it for the most part, specially with spells at higher levels. A lot of times I would leave a few spell slots open to fill them in as needed in a given situation against the players. I account for this with the NPCs taking time to find out about the PCs and preparing spells to counter some of the PCs normal tactics. Just as the PCs can find out about the enemy, the enemy can find out about them.

Originally Posted by Olgar Shiverstone

In-depth discussion on building encounters and monster roles.

I wouldn't say that the concepts are any better or worse, but certainly including the design discussion in the DMG is one of the smartest decisions made for that book, and results in a significantly more useful DMG than prior editions (where the DMG was just the place to srtore magic items).

My criticisms of 4E: Missing classes plus limited rituals/spells and magic items compared to prior editions core rules make the initial release feel incomplete; changes to the base "fluff" of D&D feel like "change for change sake" that I have to undue to match my personal vision of the game. Finally, character creation is much more role constraining (pending the release of supplements) -- that's both a bug and a feature.

I don’t think a lot of it is change for change sake. Again, in my interview with Richard Baker about the changes to D&D in 4e, I asked him a lot of the reasons for some of the more game breaking changes in 4e, like why add in the whole dragonborn, tiefling and gnome debate. I’m not going to give away the answers here for free, but after talking to him, I don’t think they are just for change sake.

Originally Posted by Monkey Boy

Hi Jurgen,
7. Dungeon and Dragon no longer in print

No, but Dragon Roots Magazine is. We have been compared to the early days of Dragon and some have said we contain more useful content than Kobold Quarterly. If you are looking for a print replacement for Dragon and Dungeon, we would love to have you.

[Jonathan Moyer]

I absolutely adore 4e and feel it's the best edition to date, no contest. But I'll start with my top dislikes:

• No Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Barbarians, Druids, Bards and Monks at launch.
• Fights can drag sometimes, particularly with larger parties, it doesn't feel faster than 3e did (at least at low levels, I've never played 3e beyond level 12).
• I'd like something halfway between minions and regular monsters.
• No minion creation guidelines.
• The MM is missing some much loved monsters, like metallic dragons.
• Frequently trying to come up with in-game justifications for the powers.
• Ability score prerequistes for some feats - I really don't like requiring any sort of prereqs for feats. But because those prereqs *are* there ...
• No mention of ability score retraining, so that you can get those ability score prereq feats later in case you need them.
• No mention of ways PCs to make their own mundane gear (weapons and armor, mostly).
• No mention of how PCs might remove a condition (such as being on fire) by themselves instead of waiting to make a save.
• No Martial Controller! I want one!

Here are my top likes:

• It's much more straightforward and easier for me to make a balanced, "by the book" encounter, from minions to traps to boss monsters to solo monsters.
• The overall darker tone and pushing the "points of light" concept to the forefront.
• The new cosmology, from the new planar structure to the new pantheon (the best D&D pantheon ever, IMO). It's condensed, refined, industrial-strength D&D.
• Warlocks, Warlords, Dragonborn, and Tieflings have become iconic D&D races and classes for me.
• Streamlined skill list and how every stat pretty much goes up by 1/2 level.
• Skill challenges are a great idea, so great IMO that I'm willing to forgive their initial mistakes.
• Fort, Ref, and Will Defenses rock, and I like the new saving throw mechanic (particuarly as applied to death and dying).
• The way healing works, from healing surges to second wind to being completely healed after a long rest.
• The DMG, particularly the lengths it goes to to insure that DMs try to incorporate players' ideas and to make dynamic, tactically interesting, stunt-filled encounters.
• Explicit discussion of roles in combat and designing classes according to that.
• Rituals allow D&D to played with no power source other than the Martial source and still have magic involved. Kickass! I just want an intelligence-based Martial controller!

IMO, my likes dramatically outweigh my dislikes. Except for when I was young and new to the game - before I got old and jaded - I've never had so much fun playing D&D.

[Wednesday Boy]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

While I agree that it's not "perfect" yet, I think the problem is far from being as pronounced as in 3E. Sometimes, it was just a matter of the absurd high ability score requirements, but sometimes its also a matter of the several class abilities, spells and feats you had to get.
In 4E, you just need to look at your ability scores. If you pick the standard spread for scores, you should eventually be able to qualify for most feats. The general ability increases at Level 11 and Level 21 certainly make it a lot more easier to get one of this Score 13-requirement feats, and this is what will probably be the ones you want to get most.

Yeah, that's true. It's much improved.

[Vael]

I keep switching back and forth on the unified class mechanic. On the one hand, I like that each class isn't its own subsystem ... you just need to read its different powers. OTOH, I played spellcasters in 3.5 ... I miss all my spell slots (and even preparing spells, though only at lower levels).

Otherwise, I agree with the OP.

[amethal]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

Aren't incantations and complex skill checks in the Unearthed Arcana book?

They are.

From memory the book has something like 2 example incantations, and the system for creating your own was pretty cumbersome. (At least for me, the one time I designed an incantation to transform a rock gnome into a whisper gnome.)

I don't know how similar complex skill checks are to skill challenges, as I don't have any 4th edition books. They don't seem that similar, from what I've read on ENWorld.

I haven't read it, but if I am not mistaken, it is a book of WotC?

Yes, the last one I bought.

In a way, that was an inconsistency in 3E. Character Classes tend to define a certain "role" and were used to describe HD, skill points, BAB and Saves. But for monsters, they didn't go from the personality/combat role approach, they went from the origin (outsider, elemental, humanoid and so on) approach. If I'd wanted to redo how monsters are done in 3E, I would probably remove the idea of type/origin defining HD and instead base it on the "goals" or "role" of the monster. If it makes sense that a Ranger has different saves then a Fighter, why shouldn't be the same be true for a Demon that fires energy burst and a Demon that fights with a greatsword?

That's an interesting idea.

I remember the glee with which my DM used sylphs, from MM2 (I think). They are fey in everything but type, which is outsider - which makes them much more of a challenge than they otherwise would be.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by amethal

They are.

From memory the book has something like 2 example incantations, and the system for creating your own was pretty cumbersome. (At least for me, the one time I designed an incantation to transform a rock gnome into a whisper gnome.)

I never tried them. Urban Arcana (d20 Modern) supplement also had incantations, but I don't know how different they are. The easiest thing would be to base them on existing spells.

I don't know how similar complex skill checks are to skill challenges, as I don't have any 4th edition books. They don't seem that similar, from what I've read on ENWorld.

IIRC, Complex skill checks meant just using the same skill multiple times, and you had to achieve a certain number of successes. Skill Challenges combine multiple skills (any skills that make sense). The advantages of 4E is that due to the changes of the math and the stacking of bonuses, the skill ranges are far more predictable, and therefore there is a general guideline on DCs.

Skill Challenges are a framework that you can use for other games, too. I think the core idea is to "model" a complex scenario (be it a urban chase, a social encounter, or investigating a crime scene) simply by saying "these are the skills you can use, and these are the number of successes you have to get and the number of failures you want to avoid. The rest is done by narrating/role-playing the individual checks, basically explaining what you attmept to do when you roll your Nature check during overland travel. (It could describe how you hunt down some food for the party, or it could be you finding a safe route through a forest).

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

Just for a random sampling:

As of this post, of the replies to Jurgen's post (including the starter)

4 were positive leaning in their opinion/assessment
7 were negative leaning in their opinion/assessment (this inlcuded Jurgen's what I don't like post)
9 were neutral or didn't give a general impression
4 were mixed nearly evenly or tried a balanced approach (or damned with faint praise)

Just a snapshot of what people are thinking, keep it in mind.

People like to argue, so I'm not surprised by these replies. Heck, I like to argue, too.

For a more accurate snapshot of what people really think, the recent poll probably works fairly well.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

I agree with you that the fighters were not dull in 3.5. They only became so when you limited the feat selection to the core books, but even with just those rules, the fighter could make interesting choices. It all really depended on the player.

Also, prestige classes added a lot of flavor to the fighter and that is really something that opened the door for the fighter. Fighters were only as dull as the limits the DM put on them.

I tend to be annoyed when I have to rely on supplements to make a certain character concept interesting. That's also why I am judging 4E on its initial release as well - I'm just as annoyed that they left out several classic classes in 4E.

Sure, you could individualize fighters in 3.5. But they still tended to have a single type of attack that they would stick to pretty much all of the time to be effective. Not very interesting.

I agree with that; and really, for me anyway, having a bunch of 2nd or higher level “minions” in 3.5 with a few hit points wasn’t all that hard to deal with. IMO, the only thing that makes the 4e minion different is that they basically capped the ACs of the PCs to within reach of the minions to be effective in hitting them.

4E minions are actually a genuine threat to the PCs now, which is a huge difference. I've used a bunch of them in gameplay, and the players were always worried about the minions in the fight so that they concentrated on taking out first. A huge shift in combat dynamics, in my opinion.

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

People like to argue, so I'm not surprised by these replies. Heck, I like to argue, too.

For a more accurate snapshot of what people really think, the recent poll probably works fairly well.

Polls are not really a fair assessment of anything. I checked out your post to see what it was all about and here you link it to an edition war thread. IMO, you should have let your arguments stand on their own. Now it just feels like a trap instead of a place to discuss likes and dislikes. I thought people brought up good points on each side, now, it feels like you just wanted people to come out of the closest and express views or read your thread when they might not have before.

I found those results very interesting. In your linked thread it appears that 4e is more popular, but that doesn't really mean anything. When I was manning the Dragon Roots Magazine booth at GenCon I got a lot of feed back from people telling me that they either were stuck in AD&D or wanted more 3.5 content. Very few actually said they made the move to 4e.

So, IMO, it either means that this poll is not all that accurate because the people not playing 4e are ignoring this thread (and/or are tired of getting bashed for defending an edition they like) or that the ENWorld is more in tune with 4e. The truth can't be judged by those results

That said, we offer both editions in our magazine so I don't care one way or another, I was just making an observation.

However, you can't claim that poll for anything unless you force every ENWorld member to read and vote on it.

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

I tend to be annoyed when I have to rely on supplements to make a certain character concept interesting. That's also why I am judging 4E on its initial release as well - I'm just as annoyed that they left out several classic classes in 4E.

Sure, you could individualize fighters in 3.5. But they still tended to have a single type of attack that they would stick to pretty much all of the time to be effective. Not very interesting.

Then I'm not sure what you are complaining about, the whole 4e core set is, in spite of making some classes better, very generic. Hell, the feat selection really blows. Too many supplements spoils the game, but a nice balance is fine. By dismissing everything but the core rules you have limited the game.

They had to leave out those classes, instead of taking up 3 pages per class, each class not takes up 10 or more pages because of the need to add in more powers. It is the biggest PHB in the history of D&D and it doesn't cover everything.

As to having to reply on certain supplements to make certain classes more interesting, well, it goes both ways. Wizards are interesting, an Incantrix is more so, an Arch Mage even more. Fighters by themselves, with just the 3.5 core books, were fun to play and it was up to the player to be creative to find new uses for the feats and such. Sorry if you never figured that out.

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

4E minions are actually a genuine threat to the PCs now, which is a huge difference. I've used a bunch of them in gameplay, and the players were always worried about the minions in the fight so that they concentrated on taking out first. A huge shift in combat dynamics, in my opinion.

IMO, the only difference in combat dynamics is that now, because of WOTC “balancing” the math of the game, the minions can actually hit the PCs at higher levels because it is harder to get outrageous ACs. Other than that, they still seem to pose the same threat as the 3.5 minions.

[Jonathan Moyer]

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

Polls are not really a fair assessment of anything.

I think polls are a great way to get the "pulse" of a population, and, when done properly, are fairly accurate. However, I'd be hesitant to extend the results of internet polls to the general gaming community for two main reasons. First, these kinds of polls are self-selected - even though it's relatively easy to click an answer, only people with strong feelings one way or the other are likely to respond. Second, the population of gamers who frequent EN World - computer savvy, articulate (in general ), passionate about their game, aware of events in the industry - may not be representive of the population of gamers at large.

However, I do think the EN World poll is a better indicator of the level of interest in 4e than the number and nature of posts to this thread. One reason is that the number of respondents is larger, but the main reason is that the level of self-selection in this thread is even higher than the internet poll. Only people who truly give a damn one way or the other will spend 10-20 minutes reading the thread and writing a response. The average gamer - perhaps even the average EN Worlder - just doesn't care.