General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
For Those Who Love, Hate, or Love & Hate 4E: What Did 4E Do Right?
I've found myself in a strange love/hate relationship with 4E. It's a fun game that focuses on combat, like 3E, but it also ditched a lot of the awkward, clumsy elements of 3E. However, I feel like they went overboard in other areas and that some of the design choices threw suspension of disbelief out the window in favor of what the creators thought would be most fun in tactical combat (such as the Fighter Paragon Path in Martial Power that lets him move an enemy and choose where it goes with a nasty look).
The game is fun, but it's not what I expected when I picked up a book with the title "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover.
There are a ton of threads where people have made gripes about 4E. So, I want to make a thread where people can talk about the features of 4E that they like, whether they love the game, dislike it, or have a love/hate relationship with it (like me).
Design Choices in 4E I Like - Martial characters have many more options (although some of these new options can be hard to swallow).
- PCs and their opponents move around all the time now and don't have to worry about losing out on damage dealing, which is far more interesting in my opinion than staying put and using a Full Attack every round.
- Rituals are a wonderful idea and I love them.
- I much prefer Fortitude, Reflex, and Will as Defenses rather than saves.
- Roles. I honestly don't understand why people have a problem with them. Classes can still choose powers that don't quite fit their role, and they were present to some extent in previous editions. I also think it's a much better idea to design a class's powers towards some specific goal rather than to give many options that leave a character a jack of all trades and master of none.
- Simple, easy to build and run monster design. I created two monsters in 3E and was afraid I did the math wrong. I've made dozens of unique creatures in 4E, although Asmor's Monster Maker made the process even easier than it already is (Thanks, Asmor!).
- Requiring that effects end with a save instead of rolling dice and keeping track of how many rounds are left. I also like the recharge mechanic for powers such as a dragon's breath weapon.
Design Choices in 4E I'm on the Fence About - I find it interesting how 4E introduced the concept of PCs giving their allies a chance to move or attack outside of their turn. I wonder how similar abilities could be handled in a game without the Power System?
- Not having to "waste" a turn to heal, although I'm not crazy about the implementation. I'd rather Clerics have some sort of constant beneficial aura rather than "hit to heal" powers.
- Non-magical healing. I like the idea of being able to fight through the pain, but I think that this should be represented solely through temporary hit points. The party would still have to use special equipment to actually heal, but it could wait until after the battle.
- Non-PC allies (such as a Ranger's Animal Companion) share actions with the one controlling them. I'm only putting this here because sticking to this design decision makes it hard to run the type of Necromancer class I wish was available (that is, a class that leads small numbers of undead minions).
- The Power System. It's design isn't something I expected from a pen and paper RPG, but the highly abstract nature of the Power System and its reliance on grid-based combat makes it easy to create custom classes based on those found in Tactical RPG video games. In fact, I often wonder why detractors compare 4E to MMORPGs like World of Warcraft when it's far more similar to Tactical RPGs like Fire Emblem or Disgaea. Hell, the designers should have called the current edition "Dungeons and Dragons: Tactics" instead of "Dungeons and Dragons: Fourth Edition."
Last edited by Hexmage-EN; 27th May 2009 at 10:48 PM..
The things that I consider done right (despite forgetting one or two things):
1. Spellcasters balanced against non-spellcasters at higher levels
2. No XP loss for casting spells
3. No XP loss for creating items
4. No level Drain
5. Non biological racial abilities (e.g, bonuses vs. giants, bonus vs kobolds, etc.) as feats
6. Heroic Tier Multiclassing
a. Class armor and weapon proficiency is granted only to a starting character. You can't dip and pick up every armor and weapon to avoid spending feats
b. Class Defense bonuses are granted only to a starting character. No more dipping to stack good bonuses.
7. More Starting Hit Points (i.e, no more death by house cats)
8. Con as one time bonus to HP
9. a single Defense progression
10. Feywild
11.Shadowfell
12. Disease Track
13. Skill Challenges (in theory)
14. Rituals (in theory)
15. Action Points as core (even if I dislike the implementation)
16. Martial Exploits (for the intention of giving fighters and rogues cool things to do. However, I still dislike per encounter and daily and prefer the 3e Book of Iron Might)
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 28th May 2009 at 12:51 AM..
3.5 player here. Couple of 4E things that intrigue me...
1) Elites and solos - the idea especially of making one monster function like multiple monsters. I can take that notion right into 3.5 easily.
2) moving opponents around - I like the idea of things that shove the PCs and monsters around. I'm not sure I like how some of it actually works, but the notion's a good one.
3) Roll to attack, not to defend. Makes sense.
4) Minions - I like the theory of monsters that are tough enough to hit and damage the PCs but not tough enough to survive more than one solid blow.
5) Cloth armor - been doing similar in 3.5 for some time.
6) Cutting down on the types of bonuses and the magic item slot types. Just a little less for the DM to juggle?
Lots that I can't really wrap my head around, or just don't like the flavor of, but there's also a lot to like in 4E.
Simplicity. 4e has just the level of complexity that I like. Not that 3.5e was too bad (it was mostly the endless scores of splat books and weird feat-chain-prerequisites that threw me off). But I've been trying to get into other games, such as Paranoia XP or All Flesh Must Be Eaten, and I'm always left scratching my head and thinking, "Why the heck did they decide to make this so freaking complicated?"
Paranoia XP is particularly egregious in this regard. They have "This is just for wacky fun! Rules are whatever the gamemaster says they are!" plastered all over their sourcebook. But then you get to character creation, where you have to pick three action skills, three knowledge skills, three forbidden skills, a service firm, mutant power, twelve specialties, skill weaknesses, a Troubleshooter squad position, attributes, and personality tics. The whole thing is a tangled mess, especially for a game that is apparently designed for light-hearted, rules-lenient, kitchy fun.
Basically, 4e has spoiled me with its ease and simplicity, especially for things like character or encounter creation. Yes, individual powers are a little complicated, sometimes quite more complicated than I'd like, and all those situational modifiers can be a hassle. But still, I love having the ability to slap together a character in thirty minutes, or an encounter in ten, and still have it be fun.
Oh, also, speaking as a player, I love that you 'get something' at each level in 4e. Every level nets you a shiny new feat or a power. It makes leveling feel like a real reward, instead, "Oh, goody. I've been playing for eight sessions for two real life months, and now I get five more hit-points. Whoopee. What a conquering hero I am."
I like that monsters are much easier to design. The math has been simplified immensely. Indeed, I am thrilled that I can potentially run a game with a single character class, who has just two at-will powers: do something cool, and do something awesome. Both powers will be resolved with page 42 in the DMG (post errata).
I like the combat section, and the ease of keeping track of conditions that the 'save ends' system produced, though I wish they had a better poison system. I like the disease track, though I wish it were more broadly implemented.
I like that 4e inspired Stalker0 to make his skill challenge system. I intend to use it for any rituals the group finds.
I like there being lots of powers as examples of stuff characters can do. If I run my own campaign, though, I'll probably ditch all of them and just tell players to come up with interesting ideas. As they develop a stable of signature moves, they can write those down, and they'll be easier to pull off than stuff they make up on the fly.
__________________ Ryan "RangerWickett" Nock
Author of the War of the Burning Sky serialized novel, free at EN World. Part Two, The Irons Have Tolled, now available.
(For the record, I'm pretty emphatically anti-4E. Some of these things I like might surprise people, given that, but bear in mind that I'm not mentioning things that I don't like, including aspects of the things I do like.)
I like that monsters and NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as PCs. I've adopted that into my design of creatures in 3.5/Pathfinder, and I find it liberating.
I like the idea of minions.
As a DM and designer, I like the attacking of various aspects (Will, Reflex, Fortitude, AC) over the saving throws. As a player, I like rolling saving throws.
I like the healing surge mechanic.
I like the simplification of bursts and blasts.
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
* Examined the faults of 3e, if not (successfully) the root causes of those faults.
* The idea behind healing surges, if not the implementation.
* Back to monsters & PCs being made through different means.
* Simplification of systems as an idea
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
4e is pretty much a good game I'm not interested in, so far as I can tell. It doesn't do what I want the rules to do in D&D. I guess that makes me anti-4e, but the issue lost most of its passion when Paizo came to the rescue. I might even play it someday as a sort of alternative fantasy system, like I'd play Exalted.
So what did 4e do right? I haven't looked at anything 4e in quite a while, and confirmed my opinion of it when I did so haven't been back. But this is going from memory of perusing the 4e PHB:
I think that putting Tieflings and warlocks into the PHB was fine. The warlock pacts seem like a decent piece of flavor.
I'm not opposed in principle to having some kind of minion/lieutenant/boss/uberboss classification that one could slap on monsters to give them extra status as befitting their position in the story.
I don't mind at all that non-casters can create magic items.
__________________ The purpose if good rules is to remove the necessity of GM fiat as much as is humanly possible.
Rules are required for role-play for the same reason as they are required for combat: to replace the skills of the player with those of the character.
In general I don't like 4e, and I haven't played enough of it to really get a feel for the nitty-gritty of how the numbers work, but conceptually I like...
- healing surges
- reduction of the need for the 'big six' items, and therefore less of a cookie-cutter feel to PCs
- less multi-layer buffing
- simplified maths & easier npc/monster creation
- minions, elites etc - quicky template-like ways to modify creatures to fit their desired roles in a given encounter
- the disease track
- the artifact rules (in concept, not sure of the execution)
- the existence of 'rituals', though (emphatically) not the implementation
- increased use of the Fey
- the new/expanded/improved pantheon
I like how all of the characters have powers. I like the game having concepts of class roles, of tiers of play and I like the design of magic items being more verbose and flexible.
I'm sure all of these have been mentioned already, but it doesn't hurt to chime in.
I'm not a D&D4 fan. I do like some of what's been done.
The Character Builder & Rule Compendium online is a brilliant idea with an adequate execution. This should be standard practice now in the business.
The four Defenses are a good idea that, for the most part, I find decently executed.
I like that there are more Hit Points at 1st level, and that the bonus scheme for both attacks and defenses got evened out. I would've done the HP thing differently, as I'm not a fan of the ever-inflating HP pool; I'd rather that HP totals been static, damage adjusted accordingly, and defenses increased to accomodate.
The Power Sources: I played Rolemaster, so "Martial" isn't a deal-breaker. How that got used broke it for me; playing a Martial character should require that the player pay close attention to the game and actively watch for emergent opportunities to use his ability- not just declare it by fiat. Limited uses, as if using something in a capacitor, is the province of magic- not mundane martial techniques.
The Roles: Had they remained just aides for class or monster design, I'd be fine with it; they didn't, so it's a deal-breaker, but I do appreciate that they do make assessment of classes easy for users.
Pretty much all of it. I particularly like how both PCs and monsters use different abilities each round and the bloodied condition means battles can have 'phases' like a boss fight in a videogame.
I'm running Mutants & Masterminds at the moment and I'd like to try making the fights more interesting by building the supervillains more like 4e monsters. I'm a huge genre fiend so I don't want to compromise on that but otoh, the fights gotta work too. As rpg fights, not comic book fights.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Things I've noticed from reading (but not yet playing) 4e that have caught my old-schooler's eye:
- More movement and fluidity in combat. (but now finish the job by moving away from the strict turn-based system and allowing things like simultaneous actions, mid-round interactions, interrupts, and reactions; and you're there!)
- Bloodied. It's an attempt, at least, to distinguish between healthy and wounded in a mechanical sense. (SWSE's wound-vitality h.p. system is better, but this is at least a start)
- Less reliance on magic; though there's still work to do here. (a fine continuation for 5e would be to drop a lot of the basic armour and weapons and go a lot more into wondrous items that are only useful in the right situation; also make it that an item's function is not always somewhat obvious by what it is e.g. have it that not all magic footwear has an effect on movement)
- Simplification; though there's still a *lot* of work to do here.
- Bloodied. It's an attempt, at least, to distinguish between healthy and wounded in a mechanical sense. (SWSE's wound-vitality h.p. system is better, but this is at least a start)
I think you mean SW3's W/V system. SW Saga Edition got rid of it - which it really needed to do, as the system didn't actually model the heroic nature of Star Wars very well!
I think you mean SW3's W/V system. SW Saga Edition got rid of it - which it really needed to do, as the system didn't actually model the heroic nature of Star Wars very well!
Cheers!
I stand corrected...
Some sort of system that mechanically differentiates between (remaining vitality or accrued fatigue) and (real wounds or injuries) in terms of both how they affect the character in and out of combat and how they can be healed or recovered is sadly needed; both for the cool-effects potential and for the realism. We've used such a thing for years in 1e, and while it's about as elegant as it can get in practice (not very, really), it's a biznitch to explain.
Lan-"how does it feel to be the king of pain"-efan
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
