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

[Dimitris]

Thanks for the d20 NPC Wiki. I liked it very much !! I am sticking with 3.5 / Pathfinder and I am going to use it.

After all, one of the main reasons that I decide to stay with the 3.5 / Pathfinder is the fact that is open due to the OGL.

I believe that even if you wanted to, you can't support the community with a wiki like this in the 4e. The GSL is much more restrictive.

Dimitris

[Samuel Leming]

Wow!

We've got people in this thread disagreeing with each other about 4e and they're actually being nice to each other! You guys impress me.

I hope I didn't just jinx it...

Sam

[D'karr]

Originally Posted by Samuel Leming

Wow!

We've got people in this thread disagreeing with each other about 4e and they're actually being nice to each other! You guys impress me.

I hope I didn't just jinx it...

Sam

Yep, it is possible to do so.

I do hope you did not jinx it too...

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by Arashi Ravenblade

I dont like anything about 4e.
I really tried when I got the core set to like it, and try and find something with it that was redeemable.
Its a ok game in and of itself. It isnt D&D. It's Exalted d20 with the numbers filed off, and Exalted does it better.

You know Arashi, I'd actually say "It isnt D&D. It's Earthdawn d20 with the numbers filed off, and Earthdawn does it better.". Actually I think Earthdawn and Exalted do what D&D 4e tries to do (as far as powers, magic, rituals, etc.) better than D&D 4e. Why? Because they actually justify why powers (talents/charms) work the way they do within the realities of the gameworlds, and don't impose nonsensical restrictions on uses per..5min or days.

D&D 4e goes the route of not justifying why any of the powers work the way they do, and seeing many other games with similar mechanics where they are justiified and made consistent with the games reality...I can't help but feel it was a little lazy as far as design goes.

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

I'm currently running an Exalted game, so I'd like to chime in on that.

First of all, Exalted (at least, Solar Exalted) are much, much more powerful). In Exalted, you can have a power as a starting character that allows you to parry a mountain thrown at you, and I've not seen anything like that in D&D 4E.

Furthermore, Solar Exalted aren't really that good at teamwork. Yes, each caste has its own specialty, but each of them is supposed to be a Glorious Leader in its own right, so they don't have that many powers that directly help with teamwork tactics within its own circle.

Finally, Exalted really does not have much of a concept of "Combat Balance". It's extremely hard to gauge just what kinds of enemies are appropriate for the player characters, as their combat abilities are all over the map.

I mean, I like Exalted. It's a fun game, and I've learned a lot about high-powered gaming, but I really cannot see much of a similarity between it and D&D 4E - D&D 4E remains D&D to the core, despite all the changes.

As far as teamwork goes, well the Dragonblooded have that niche in the Exalted world and thus if you want a game that centers on teamwork you would play the DB instead of Solars. Solars are lone badass heroes like Riddick, Lancelot, Elric, Wolverine, etc. They may have companions and a team but they definitely have the power where they can do things their way as opposed to the teams way. It's never been a big deal to me when I've ran or played Solars.

I think both the charms and magic (not power level but concept) can be used to draw parallels to Exalted...however I think the biggest comparison can be drawn between the two games cosmologies, D&D 4e's cosmology seems to be very similar to Exalted's (but toned down a few notches) upon first glance.

I use XP to gauge enemies when I play Exalted... but I get what you're saying. Exalted gives characters a chance to create characters who are powerful in whatever concept they create...I think it's imperative a GM know his players characters and personalize challenges in Exalted.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Imaro

You know Arashi, I'd actually say "It isnt D&D. It's Earthdawn d20 with the numbers filed off, and Earthdawn does it better.". Actually I think Earthdawn and Exalted do what D&D 4e tries to do (as far as powers, magic, rituals, etc.) better than D&D 4e. Why? Because they actually justify why powers (talents/charms) work the way they do within the realities of the gameworlds, and don't impose nonsensical restrictions on uses per..5min or days.

D&D 4e goes the route of not justifying why any of the powers work the way they do, and seeing many other games with similar mechanics where they are justiified and made consistent with the games reality...I can't help but feel it was a little lazy as far as design goes.

Well, I think - from my very limited experience in either games (Earthdawn or Exalted) that 4E does the mechanics better. (But take that with a grain of salt - again, limited experiences).

I know that others brought up the Earthdawn comparison (especially in regards to healing surges). One view on "martial" abilities is that they aremagic (just like in Earthdawn). The entire "moxie" thing of hit points, the ability of mortal man being able to engage a dragon or a humanoid 10 times your size in melee, they all don't describe something mundane occurring, and can you really explain this with mundane skill?

Martial Powers are like the wires used in movies like Matrix. They are invisible (in movies they are simply edited out), but they allow you to perform moves that normally wouldn't be possible.

I am looking forward to Redbricks 4E Earthdawn.

I think both the charms and magic (not power level but concept) can be used to draw parallels to Exalted...however I think the biggest comparison can be drawn between the two games cosmologies, D&D 4e's cosmology seems to be very similar to Exalted's (but toned down a few notches) upon first glance.

Did Exalted 1e have a different cosmology then Exalted 2e? Because I found the description in 2e not similar. But maybe we are looking at different parts?

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Lanefan

Some things about 4e design I like:

- Increased use of terrain as a feature...which means more interesting set-piece encounters and having the terrain and surroundings actually play a part in said encounters
- Points of light in the darkness
- The "official" adventures so far; both very good (I haven't seen H3 yet)
- The artwork and general look of it...big improvement over 3e
- I haven't tried it yet, but if what others say is true then faster char-gen at all levels can only be a good thing.

Some things that bother me at the design level:

- Way too big a gap between commoners and 1st-level characters (ditto for minions and non-minions)
- Too much realism sacrificed to efficiency e.g. 1-1-1-1 diagonals, firecubes, etc.
- Too much blurring between the classes - caster classes can fight, and non-caster classes can do magic...wtf?
- Overemphasis on balance again at cost of realism. In reality, not everyone is going to be able to help much in every situation...so why force that into the game?

Lanefan

I love the use of terrain in 4e. This is something we did a lot of on our own but it is nice to see it in maps and such.

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by D'karr

Yep, it is possible to do so.

I do hope you did not jinx it too...

Dang it. I was going to say something clever and witty laced with sarcastic undertones, but I better not.

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

The numbers mean something to me - If I play a RPG, I want to use the numbers that define my characters because they represent this character. If a session never requires me to use any of my character abilities, I feel a bit like I wasted my time, or at least didn't really play that character. It was just me, thinking about a fictional situation and reacting to it, and the person I was impersonating didn't matter.

But that's not enough, sure. I also want to feel challenged myself - by choosing which character abilities I use, and how. In combat, these are tactical decisions - which ally do I aid in his attacks, which enemy do I take out first (and how), which ally do I protect, how can I maneuver my opponents into a situation more favorable to me.


Well, "magic" is not realistic at all, and yet we want it in our fantasy games. My view on this is that a role-playing game is still a game. Imbalances are not a sign of a good game. In reality, someone trained in using a gun might be a lot more deadly and survive a lot longer than one with just some martial arts training. But in a game that includes both options, they should be equally valid (assuming equal cost, yada yada ).
This is not a simulationist perspective, I suppose, but I find the "validity" of all available roles in a role-playing game very important for my enjoyment of the game.

There are other gameplay concerns for this - I like having the ability to make "fair" challenges for my PCs when I DM. I want the ability to predict how tough any situation (be it a combat encounter, or anything else that will resolved with dice) will be for them. A game that doesn't ensure balance across the board makes this very difficult.
But I might be willing to compromise here - if an individual class or character is not good at certain situations, give me tools to handle this difference. If a Noble is inherently inferior in combat to a wizard or a fighter, give me a number that describes this difference so I can take it into account. If a Fighter is inherently inferior in a social situation then a Noble, again, tell me how much so, and I can take it into account.
I still find this inferior to using balance across a board (to be expected by a compromise), because it still makes it likely that one or more players will not enjoy important parts of the game as others, simply due to their choice of character.

Well, of course magic is not "real" but that doesn't mean that "reality" can't fit into the realm of fantasy.

I think what he means, and what I prefer, is the suspension of disbelief. I can watch just about any movie, but if the suspension of disbelief doesn’t ground itself in some for of reality or otherwise explain itself, I lose interest in the movie. The same applies for Roleplaying.

I know that magic doesn’t exist in the real world, but the game comes up with things that make it possible, whether it is pacts with dark beings (warlock), the use of components and symbols to get a desired effect (wizards) or genetic abnormalities resulting in powers (sorcerers). Things that aren’t grounded in reality are obscure rules that come into play and make no sense. Attacks of opportunity, or opportunity in 4e, is a good example. In 4e, you get an attack on everyone that comes close and provokes an attack. So, if you were to stand in a doorway as 1 million goblins rushed through the door way that you were defending you would get 1 attack on each minion of the million.

While the ability to cast a fireball isn’t “real” it could be reasonably explained in a fantasy setting. I can’t find any reality in the breaking of physics that it would entail to attack each of the 1 million goblins coming through the door with a sword. Not only would you not be able to swing the sword that much in one round because your arms would tire, or could you even get in that many blows in 6 seconds but the bodies would pile up very quickly.

So, at least for me, if it breaks the boundaries of physics, it disinterests me.

I like some realism in my games and dismiss things that don’t make sense in some form regarding suspension of disbelief.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

Well, of course magic is not "real" but that doesn't mean that "reality" can't fit into the realm of fantasy.

I think what he means, and what I prefer, is the suspension of disbelief. I can watch just about any movie, but if the suspension of disbelief doesn’t ground itself in some for of reality or otherwise explain itself, I lose interest in the movie. The same applies for Roleplaying.

I know that magic doesn’t exist in the real world, but the game comes up with things that make it possible, whether it is pacts with dark beings (warlock), the use of components and symbols to get a desired effect (wizards) or genetic abnormalities resulting in powers (sorcerers). Things that aren’t grounded in reality are obscure rules that come into play and make no sense. Attacks of opportunity, or opportunity in 4e, is a good example. In 4e, you get an attack on everyone that comes close and provokes an attack. So, if you were to stand in a doorway as 1 million goblins rushed through the door way that you were defending you would get 1 attack on each minion of the million.

While the ability to cast a fireball isn’t “real” it could be reasonably explained in a fantasy setting. I can’t find any reality in the breaking of physics that it would entail to attack each of the 1 million goblins coming through the door with a sword. Not only would you not be able to swing the sword that much in one round because your arms would tire, or could you even get in that many blows in 6 seconds but the bodies would pile up very quickly.
.

If I wanted to get serious about this extreme example, here is my approach:

1) 1 million goblins won't come through that door. A goblin has a speed of 6 squares, and using running, he could move up to 16 squares per round. This means the maximum number of goblins that could get through that door are the number of goblins that can be within 16 squares of it. Since you can have per RAW only 1 goblin per square, this leaves you with 16 x 16 = 256 goblins. (assuming they only get to the door and then disappear into thin air, not thinking about where they end up)
2) An attack does not describe a single "swing" of a sword, it presents a series of swings, feints, parries and moves that you can perform within 6 seconds in a 5 x 5 ft wide area and extending into a 15 x 15 ft wide area. Hence, if in these 6 seconds 144 goblins come through the area, why shouldn't your series of swings, feints, moves and parries be able to affect them?
Imagine, 144 goblins entering through a single door - that looks pretty much like a constant stream of bodies, and if you swing your sword around, you're bound to hit a lot, and you certainly won't make one sword swing per enemy. It's a bit like cleave, except you don't need a feat or power to explain this happening.

Well, lucky I didn't think seriously about this and wasted your and my time with coming up with a solution to explain the scenario, right?

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

If I wanted to get serious about this extreme example, here is my approach:

1) 1 million goblins won't come through that door. A goblin has a speed of 6 squares, and using running, he could move up to 16 squares per round. This means the maximum number of goblins that could get through that door are the number of goblins that can be within 16 squares of it. Since you can have per RAW only 1 goblin per square, this leaves you with 16 x 16 = 256 goblins. (assuming they only get to the door and then disappear into thin air, not thinking about where they end up)
2) An attack does not describe a single "swing" of a sword, it presents a series of swings, feints, parries and moves that you can perform within 6 seconds in a 5 x 5 ft wide area and extending into a 15 x 15 ft wide area. Hence, if in these 6 seconds 144 goblins come through the area, why shouldn't your series of swings, feints, moves and parries be able to affect them?
Imagine, 144 goblins entering through a single door - that looks pretty much like a constant stream of bodies, and if you swing your sword around, you're bound to hit a lot, and you certainly won't make one sword swing per enemy. It's a bit like cleave, except you don't need a feat or power to explain this happening.

Well, lucky I didn't think seriously about this and wasted your and my time with coming up with a solution to explain the scenario, right?

ROFL
Um, yeah. Okay, even if you managed to fit 144 goblins within the squares needed to get in that area there is just no way for you to hit all of them in 6 seconds. Well, okay, if all the goblins where in a giant canon and you held your sword/weapon at head height and the canon shot all the goblins through in a burst a speed then maybe, but I'm sure your own arms would be taken off too

Ohh, in 4e you don't run at 4 times your movement, you just get a +2.

And, maybe they are all entering the doorway with an extradimensional portal where you can fit 1 million people in tight quarters.

[Aristotle]

I have to agree with the OP on all points. I've always had good ideas for characters that were fighters and rogues, but I've never played them because they felt boring to me after a few levels.

I would add rule modularity to the list. It feels like some modules could easily be replaced with a few minutes work. (i.e. low magic setting: characters get +1 to attack, damage, and all defenses every 5 levels. No magic weapons, armor, or neck slot items exist.) Others might take more work. Similarly it feels like you could blur the distinctions between roles by making a generic class for each power source. I'm really hoping for an unearthed arcana type supplement at some point that features that kind of modularity.

Originally Posted by Khuxan

So that's why I ask - because as much as I like 4E, I cannot escape the feeling it's missing something.

I agree with this too though. I love the game, and have no intention of playing anything else right now, but sometimes it feels like something isn't right even when everything makes sense (to me) and everyone is having fun. I'm at a loss to explain it.

[Jürgen Hubert]

I remembered two other things I don't like about 4E:

- There's no good way of playing creatures significantly more powerful than the human norm. I mean, it's not as if Level Adjustment in 3.5 worked very well, but at least you could play a lich or vampire.

- There's no separate grouping of non-combat powers - powers that are cool and useful, but provide no combat bonus at all. I'm thinking of things like feats of strength for fighters, powers of oratory for paladins and clerics, and so on - powers that you could use in skill challenges and other role-playing situations.

For all its mechanical problems, Exalted has tons of examples of those. Heck, they even had cool powers for the Bureaucracy skill. While skill challenges in D&D 4E work well enough, they are missing the "wow" factor that many combat powers have.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

- There's no separate grouping of non-combat powers - powers that are cool and useful, but provide no combat bonus at all. I'm thinking of things like feats of strength for fighters, powers of oratory for paladins and clerics, and so on - powers that you could use in skill challenges and other role-playing situations.

One of the things that turns me off most about 4E is it's almost monolithic focus on combat, particularly in regards to what the PCs are capable of and what monsters are like. Now, I like the monster stat block for is clean, utilitarian qualities. But the MM is truly uninspiring. Same with the PHB. I cannot for the life of me read through the PHB in preparation for a 4E game I will be playing in and get inspired or excited about an actual character. All I see is a pair of very narrow combat capabilities per class.

This probably wouldn't be so bad if it was only the focus of the rules that was centered on combat. After all, 1e and 4E are very similar in this regard: the PHB consists mostly of how your character can kill things, while the DMG provides a bunch of material on all sorts of neat stuff. Unfortunately, 4E took that extra step where the focus of play is centered on combat as well. the idea, as laid out in the DMG adventure design section, is an hour per combat (too long!) and some time for kibbitzing before and after. i understand the reason -- combat is fun and D&D is supposed to be fun; 2+2=4 -- but all that other fun stuff (exploration, resource management, followers and strongholds, operational play, etc...) got cut because it was (and I am sure "is", I know my tastes aren't shared by many) not considered fun. Which leaves combat.

Man, I remember some great sessions where there wasn't a bit of combat. Not because everyone was busy role-playing (though that happened too and it was great, but that's not edition dependent) but because the party was struggling to get from A to B on the way to defeat McBaddie McGuffineister without starving, getting lost or getting eaten by something nasty and horrible and thoroughly out of their league in the middle of the wilderness or the depths of the dungeon. I remember players statting up, naming and writing out backgrounds for all of their 9th level followers, satffing their keeps and trying to squeeze every last penny out of their won treasure just to make upkeep costs. I remember parties standing around a statue with a million gp ruby in its forhead, spending forever and a day trying to figure out whether they should go for it, and how, until one party finally broke and went for a straight on grab (soon followed by the clatter of 4d6 drop the lowest). I remember 4 out of 5 players sitting with rapt attention on me and the wizard player as a magical duel unfolded, never once feeling bored or useless in the process. All of these sessions were awesome fun, and they happened in every edition up till now. And every one of those things has been excised in favor of cool combat abilities and "balance".

4E has some great ideas for keeping D&D combat interesting. Too bad it sacrificied nearly everything else to achieve that.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Reynard

...Unfortunately, 4E took that extra step where the focus of play is centered on combat as well. the idea, as laid out in the DMG adventure design section, is an hour per combat (too long!) and some time for kibbitzing before and after. i understand the reason -- combat is fun and D&D is supposed to be fun; 2+2=4 -- but all that other fun stuff (exploration, resource management, followers and strongholds, operational play, etc...) got cut because it was (and I am sure "is", I know my tastes aren't shared by many) not considered fun. Which leaves combat.

Man, I remember some great sessions where there wasn't a bit of combat...the party was struggling to get from A to B on the way to defeat McBaddie McGuffineister without starving, getting lost or getting eaten by something nasty and horrible and thoroughly out of their league in the middle of the wilderness or the depths of the dungeon.

However, none of that disappeared, from what I can tell - Chapter 2 is all about exploration, pacing, narration, how to keep suspense, etc., Chapter 5 is in part about keeping some dice action for players who love to roll their dice, without turning things into yet another combat for the players who don't like lots of combat. Chapter 9's all about making a cohesive world to adventure in, and, outside of the DMG, that Dungeoncraft series online has been pretty good in some of the stuff about making living, breathing worlds for DMs. For us long-experienced dungeon masters, it might not be enough talbe fare, but they do treat it with a significant page count for the novice DM to dig into.

In my opinion, this may have been the best book since the very first DMG for actually giving DMs good advice on how to do his thing. Goodness knows the second edition DMG didn't, and the 3e DMG really didn't do the job it needed to, either. The 1st DMG, followed by the 4th DMG, and then 3.5 edition's DMG2, are the three best ones in the series when it comes to giving DM's both good advice and lots of ideas for world-filler for their games. Heck, 4e sees the return of Dungeon Dressing for different rooms in a dungeon (p.110), and random dungeons (p.190) something missing since 1979!

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Dimitris

Thanks for the d20 NPC Wiki. I liked it very much !! I am sticking with 3.5 / Pathfinder and I am going to use it.

After all, one of the main reasons that I decide to stay with the 3.5 / Pathfinder is the fact that is open due to the OGL.

I believe that even if you wanted to, you can't support the community with a wiki like this in the 4e. The GSL is much more restrictive.

Since the d20 Wiki doesn't run under the OGL/d20 License either (it uses all sorts of D&D supplements), this won't be an issue - it falls under the fan site policy.

[FireLance]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Moyer

I'd like something halfway between minions and regular monsters.

Just a quick plug for something I've worked on: Adjuncts.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by DM-Rocco

ROFL
Um, yeah. Okay, even if you managed to fit 144 goblins within the squares needed to get in that area there is just no way for you to hit all of them in 6 seconds. Well, okay, if all the goblins where in a giant canon and you held your sword/weapon at head height and the canon shot all the goblins through in a burst a speed then maybe, but I'm sure your own arms would be taken off too

Ohh, in 4e you don't run at 4 times your movement, you just get a +2.

And, maybe they are all entering the doorway with an extradimensional portal where you can fit 1 million people in tight quarters.

Speed: 6 + 2 = 8; two move actions = 16.

Ah, I think there is some inconsistency in my "math" - I am pretty sure I had written down 16 x 16 somewhere, but apparently it got lost over editing or something... Silly me... I should really reread my posts before posting...

[Ginnel]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

I remembered two other things I don't like about 4E:

- There's no good way of playing creatures significantly more powerful than the human norm. I mean, it's not as if Level Adjustment in 3.5 worked very well, but at least you could play a lich or vampire.

- There's no separate grouping of non-combat powers - powers that are cool and useful, but provide no combat bonus at all. I'm thinking of things like feats of strength for fighters, powers of oratory for paladins and clerics, and so on - powers that you could use in skill challenges and other role-playing situations.

Well I'm giving a one shot a try asking players what concepts they want to play then writing out the classes/races myself this will probably include the characters playing Monster Classes, where the powers given will be based on a made up Monster rather than a predefined class, I'm sure I'll fit in some feats of strength esque utility powers for use out of combat too.

[Andor]

If by fighter you mean only the fighter class and the core feats then yes they were kinda limited. If you expand fighter to include 'guys who hit things with sword' and include CW and PHB II and (especially) Bo9S then there is plenty to do with them in 3e.

Likewise rituals are nice but the Invocation rules from 3e beat them hollow and were there first.

But this is a 'What do you like about 4e' thread so:

At will powers, for the options they present to the set of default actions.

The concise flavorfullness present in the racial powers.

Unlocking monster HP from level.

Flattening the power growth curve.

Unfortunately my giant bugaboo with 4e remains it's abstractness. What the heck does Bolstering Stike do? What does it look like to someone next to that Paladin? I find it hard to immerse myself in character when I don't know what the world looks like through that character's eyes.

[D'karr]

Originally Posted by Reynard

4E has some great ideas for keeping D&D combat interesting. Too bad it sacrificied nearly everything else to achieve that.

I'll have to disagree. I was sitting at the car shop this morning going for a state inspection and I brought my DMG with me. I started reading the book again to get more familiar with all the info it had.

Chapter 1 has a great section for identifying what type of players you have and what makes them tick. So that the DM can find good ground to provide a fun game for each type of player he might have.

Chapter 2 concentrates on running the game. It has a really good section on the modes of the game and how each one interacts. Exploration is one of those modes. The chapter also covers pacing and how to make the "environment" exciting. Also how to dispense information to keep suspense and give rewards for clever exploration. Improvisation, props, etc. This chapter is chock full of good advice to run exciting games, even without combat.

That's as far as I got with the reading this morning but other sections also include awesome tools for running games that have combat, little combat or no combat.

Your example about traveling from A to B trying to avoid starvation, etc. That is quite easily modeled with a Skill Challenge. A mage duel, can be a skill challenge or a combat encounter. Even just a skill check if you choose. I can see opposing mages trying to one-up each other with the use of rituals, arcana checks, history checks, religion checks, diplomacy and even intimidation.

So in short, I don't understand these comments about the game ditching all these elements in favor of combat because I can easily point in the book to where it either gives me a tool to do that, or advice on how to do that. And to top it off it gives me advice on how to keep ALL my players involved and having fun.