4e / GSL For Those Who Love, Hate, or Love & Hate 4E: What Did 4E Do Right?

[Zustiur]

* I'll chime in for another 'defenses instead of saves'
* Combat is generally more interesting
* Better clarification of Standard/Move/Minor/Free than 3E
* Replacement of full attack - I'd like to see a house rule for this in 3E, remove full attack for everyone so that you only need to make one attack roll each round... and go from there. I'm not sure how.
* No 'small' and 'medium' weapons to cause oddities like 'small' long spears with reach and so on.

[pogre]

We just concluded our 4e campaign, and I'm largely in the anti-4e camp now. However, I liked the following about the game:

- Monsters do not follow PC rules.

- Encounter format.

- Easier stat blocks.

- Largely dropping multiple attacks in a round.

- minions.

- powers instead of spells.

[vagabundo]

Hmm 4e is a perfect fit for me, suits my playstyle.

* A big fan of the new cosmos
* Really like the Elves/Eladran split
* Races and base classe structure are really done right.
* Flexibility and easy of design have been injected back into the system
* The super-sexy streamlined D20 combat system. The whole combat chapter is a work of art as far as I'm concerned.
* Explicit Tiers
* Healing Surges
* Weapon properties - but they didn't go far enough with this.
* nerfing - overpowered - wizards and buffs
* Diseases
* Monster design
* Skills - although I think one or two more skills would have been better
* The online tools and DDI are excellent.

Probably more, but that's enough for now...



On the fence:
* The powers system: I really like the system in theory, but some of the implementation has been off and it can get complex for the players to manage so many powers and sometimes powers are very specific and arn't that useful. Too many samey powers and I'm not sure how much more 3[W[ damage and condition I can take. I'm hoping to see more flexibility built into the system as it progresses. The PHBIII classes - or maybe martial power II - will be interesting because I think they will have to expand the system or die...

[xechnao]

It put limits to the D20 system to try make it more focused and manageable and built around this foundation a new and solid game.
But as the OP puts it fails on suspension of disbelief. I blame for this their need to cater to the D20 system while making this new and solid game. I believe, if they did not have to remain D20 system like and built from the ground up 4e could have been so much better.
Oh well, perhaps 5e.

[Nightson]

The thing I like most about 4e is the way they exposed the system to view. It's a lot easier to see how it works, and because of that it's a lot easier to change when need be.

[Raith5]

I have odd relationship with 4th ed. When I am actually playing it I love it, but when I sit down to create a PC or level up I find it a bit annoying at times.

I love

* The healing surge mechanism
* The mobility and fluidity of fights
* I like the style and the practice of the races and the classes
* Skills and skill challenges
* I like the way they did action points
* The new cosmology is great

Im not fond of/ thought could be better

* Feats - they seem to vary widely between the indispensable and the really weak
* At wills - I would have lied to see more at wills, or get more at will as characters progress that are more situational (I guess more like fighter or wizard at wills where you select the right power for the job - rather than the ranger at will Twin Strike being the only at will that gets used)
* More utility powers and I dislike the divide between utilities that buff skills and those that are defensive/combat related.
* Rituals - should take less time to cast
* Multiclassing - should be more opened ended and allow more dipping into the class features. I like the ides of be able to access the at will of the MCed class as an encounter power.

Still I think 4th ed is a great step forward!

[steenan]

I don't like 4e, mostly because of the lack of solid fluff. On the other hand, I can't deny that the game implements a few very good mechanical ideas:
- monster roles, minions, elites and solos; it is clear how to build interesting, tactical and cinematic combats
- simple monster creation rules
- healing surges and healing in general; completely unrealistic, but good for both story structure (assuming power fantasy style) and game balance
- no long-term buffing spells and SoD spells
- at-will, encounter and daily powers; milestones to encourage longer adventuring days
- simple skill system (though I don't like the lack of non-adventuring skills)
- consistent implementation of AC and other defenses
- racial feats for culture-dependent racial abilities

[FireLance]

I'd say that 4E has a very good rules skeleton. Some of the things that I like the most about the ruleset are:

1. Encounter-based balancing
2. The power structure (at-wills, encounters, dailies, utilities)
3. The skill challenge structure
4. The disease track

The RAW implementation of some of these may have been problematic (skill challenges in particular) but I think the core concepts are very flexible and can be easily tweaked to have wider applications (e.g. the disease track can simulate the effect of long-term poisons and injuries) or to add new complications and variations for more experienced players (e.g. allowing the use of certain powers or good ideas or roleplaying on the part of the player to earn automatic successes in a skill challenge).

It seems that some flavor choices did not go down so well, though - while I don't think that there's anything wrong mechanically with come and get it as a power, some have found it thematically inappropriate for a fighter.

[Kinneus]

I've noticed something interesting here: people who say they explicitly dislike or are on the fence about 4e say they like healing surges. While poeple that are fans of 4e (in my experience, anyway), generally dislike the healing surge mechanic. Their gripe is that the designers went through all this trouble to eliminate the fifteen-minute adventure day syndrome, giving players things like encounter powers, at-wills, milestones and action points to encourage them to do more than a couple of encounters a day. But then they pulled a 180 and put in healing surges, a hard and fast limiter on how much your character can do in one day. Anyone who's played 4e knows; if one player is out of healing surges, the adventure comes to a halt as soon as possible.

Could some of the people who like healing surges shed a little light onto why? Do you like a limit on how much the characters can accomplish in a day? Or maybe just a limit on how much healing you can pump into a single person before they need actual rest? Also interested in why people who dislike the system like this particular mechanic, while people who do like it, don't.

[Mathew_Freeman]

Fundamentally, I like the fact that 4e put the fun of playing a game up front and centre, and not the simulation of a game world.

I know that a lot of things in 4e can't be explained in a pseudo-scientific way, and I'm completely fine with that because, mechanically, they make the game more fun for the way I like to game.

[meomwt]

I'm certainly in the anti-4E camp, though there are things there which I can cope with -and, indeed, am using in the campaign I am currently writing for my group.

Good stuff

• Skill challenges. One failed roll needn't de-rail an adventure. Exellent. It can almost be ported as-is into 3E and I intend to highlight it in my game.
• Treasure packet system. Trailblazer will be using this - details are in the free preview available - and I think the implementation works well.
• Minions. Someone has done some work on them here on ENWorld, and I've taken that ball and run with it. I like the idea and I like the concept.
• Encounter building by point-buy. I've spent many a happy hour adding up non-linear CR's in my head to work out whether an encounter was fair and balanced: this system is a winner in my book.

Things I don't like about 4E

• Fort/ Will/ Reflex as defences, not saves. I see these as a PC getting a chance to avoid a Fate Worse Than Death (i.e. the roll simulates actively doing something) rather than a static defence. A Rogue rolling out of the way of a Red Dragon's fiery breath, for example, rather than just getting armour (or whatever) in the way. YMMV.
• The Powers system. Feels a step removed from what D&D has always been, IMO. Fighters swing swords, not adopt "The Stance of the Constpated Dragon" (or whatever the powers are called) to hit the oncoming Orc.
• Deity List. They have been playing mix'n'match, pulling Greyhawk Deities together with some others to produce a disparate mis-match.
• Alignment. Unaligned I can cope with. I can almost use that. But I don't like the other changes, they seem arbitary.
• Marking. Seems to over-complicate an already complicated combat system with another Condition to use.
• The new power system means that Wizards, Clerics, etc., who are primarily spell-casters, get nerfed on the battlefield and over-complictaed (rituals) when not.

For me, 3E is a good solid system, and I have plenty of support material and adventure sources to keep going for a long, long time...

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Kinneus

I've noticed something interesting here: people who say they explicitly dislike or are on the fence about 4e say they like healing surges. While poeple that are fans of 4e (in my experience, anyway), generally dislike the healing surge mechanic. Their gripe is that the designers went through all this trouble to eliminate the fifteen-minute adventure day syndrome, giving players things like encounter powers, at-wills, milestones and action points to encourage them to do more than a couple of encounters a day. But then they pulled a 180 and put in healing surges, a hard and fast limiter on how much your character can do in one day. Anyone who's played 4e knows; if one player is out of healing surges, the adventure comes to a halt as soon as possible.

Could some of the people who like healing surges shed a little light onto why? Do you like a limit on how much the characters can accomplish in a day? Or maybe just a limit on how much healing you can pump into a single person before they need actual rest? Also interested in why people who dislike the system like this particular mechanic, while people who do like it, don't.

Well, maybe this is a topic for the "So that's why you like it thread!"?

My pick is. I like it for entire gameplay reasons mostly. Essentially, it is, together with daily powers, a resource you have to manage and adds a "strategic" component to play.These two resources might actually be crucial to work together. Without daily powers, you would have a pretty constant daily routine. You can't beat too tough enemies anyway, since you have nothing to get you out of trouble, so overall, healing surges erode at the same pace. Without healing surges, there is little real benefit of spending a daily power during a longer series of combats. You will heal to full anyway when the fight is over. They only matter in a hard combat (because you might not win without them), but not if you go through a series of moderate or easy encounters. You then spend dailies to go through less healing surges!

Without daily powers and healing surges, only the encounter would matter. That essentially removes one layer of "challenges" you have to face as a party during play. But I want such challenge. A game (to my taste) requires me to make decisions, predicting consequences and dealing with them. In an RPG, I feel that needs to happen both on the game and the story side.

There are also aspects of "verisimilitude" to it, I suppose - like the idea that characters don't advance from 1st level to 20th level 3 days of non-stop fighting. But that's actually not that relevant, not after having gone through dozens of cure light wound wands in 3rd edition.

[FireLance]

I don't really mind daily limits to healing surges (I'm old school enough to accept that mortals can't keep going indefinitely) and I do like the way that healing surges tend to make hit point restoration proportional to a character's base hit points.

Apart from the issues you mentioned, I believe some other areas of dislike are:

1. The fact that most types of healing require healing surges to work (potions, in particular).

2. Flavor issues arising from what happens when hit points are restored through non-magical means (such as using the second wind action, spending healing surges during a short rest, and a warlord's inspiring word).

[BryonD]

I really very much like the 4E death and dying rule.

[avin]

I'm on the "like 4E" wagon so I will list only the things I do not like in it:

- This feeling that D&D is GOOOOOOOOOD vs evil that 4E pushes. Former editions fit better my shades of gray DM style. Everything has a reason, not just "becuz i'm evilz lolz".

- The condensed 4E MM fluff. Damn. My favorite books are always monster manuals. I love to get inspiration by reading all former editions of it. 4E is lackluster, to say the least.

- Too much straight story. "Blood War happened because X stole Y from Z" seems a dumb downed area.

- Elemental Chaos.

- Cartoon Style.

Stuff OP likes is mostly what I like also.

[BryonD]

Originally Posted by Mathew_Freeman

Fundamentally, I like the fact that 4e put the fun of playing a game up front and centre, and not the simulation of a game world.

You know, this really doesn't say anything.
It is like saying that baseball puts the fun up front and center, and basketball is hung up on bouncing a ball and throwing it through a hoop. Therefore, baseball is more focused on fun than basketball.

Obviously, 4E touches on *something* that is more fun *to you*. But without providing any data whatsoever on what constitutes "fun", you haven't made a complete statement.

[malkav666]

I am not a fan of 4e. Hate is probably too strong of a word to describe my feelings about the system. My group gave it a solid 6 month day in court playing it once a week for that time, and just slowly came to the realization that we really weren't having as much fun with it as we did with some other flavors of FRPG that we were playing.

That being said there are some design elements which I personally enjoy:

1. I like the whole process of dying in 4e. Everything from the mechanics of the death saving throw to the increasing amount of negative HP you get as a buffer as you level up. It just makes sense to me that characters would be a little harder to kill as they level up, and that a player repeatedly dropped into the negatives would have a greater chance of death on each subsequent trip.

2. I like the idea of a Vancian system that has abilities that are used once a day/1 an encounter/ and at will all in one system. While I find this system to be an eloquent system for magic users (in fact I would love to see a 3.x options book treating some of the casting classes in 3.x that way). I don't so much care for it for the martial types, and certainly not as an end all for combat options in general. but the premise of the idea is smart, and I feel that it is the natural evolution of the Vancian system. I like it very much in concept, even though the delivery was not my cup of tea.

3. I like the concept of more recharge rolls for monster abilities. I know this was present in 3.x. But I enjoy that fact that most monsters have it in 4e. It makes them a little more random to run.

4. I like the addition of rules for using abilities that are typically considered to be ranged in melee range (close blast). I consider this to be a good evolution of targeting mechanics from previous editions as well. It adds a few new dynamics to combat for the folks who normally attack at range, that I find to be refreshing. I do not like many applications of it as far as which abilities in 4e are considered to be close blast. But in a design sense it is a fabulous addition.

I am sure there are likely other tidbits of the system that I find to be well thought out. In fact, my opinions of the most of the mechanics in the combat portion of the 4e system are very high. It is just how those mechanics are ultimately applied that marginalize the system as a whole for me personally. But thats cool, everybody likes different things. If we didn't, there would only be one flavor of ice cream, and that would be a sad thing indeed.

love,

malkav

[Turbiales]

1- I like the cutoff of the required setup time for a session. (I MEAN IT, in 3.5 it's a major pain)
2- I like the dinamics of the encounter. The PC's are more like to move arround the battlefield than 3.5
3- In general i like de action points mechanic, i always like if the player's have a method of thinker the system.
4- The Classes are overall balanced, everybody has an oportunity to shine.
5- The weapons seems to be more balanced, some favor precision others favor damage. It's not the realm of Greatswords with Power Attacks like 3.5 was.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Kinneus

Could some of the people who like healing surges shed a little light onto why?

I like the idea. The actual implementation is dingo kidneys.


RC

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

I like the idea. The actual implementation is dingo kidneys.

I never knew that dingos had problematic kidneys! Is it like with our Appendix?