[MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION], I agree with your posts so far. But they've focused mainly on PC building and encounter building. So I thought I'd mention action resolution: 4e's action resolution mechanics make it easy to resolve a wide range of heroic fantasy situations in a way that conveys the fiction without causing the resolution to bog down or collapse into GM fiat.
D&D 4E The Twelve Days of Th4enksgiving
FireLance
Legend
5. Epic Destinies
One way in which 4e distinguishes epic-level characters is that it gives each of them a bit of flavour about how they leave a lasting impact on the world. Granted, you do not have to be an extremely powerful character to have a lasting impact on the game world, and conversely, it should not be a requirement for every extremely powerful character to have a lasting impact on the world, but in the special case of the PCs, it is not a bad idea to tie the two together.
For the player, it is an opportunity to look beyond the mechanics and consider the issue of how he would like his character to be remembered in the game world. For the DM, it is a source of inspiration for quests and challenges – ideally, the adventures in the epic tier should relate to the PCs' epic destinies, and every successful quest should bring one or more of the PCs closer to their goals, which would be reflected in the new powers that they gain.
Of course, it does not always pan out this way in actual play, but I still think that epic destinies are an intriguing concept with a great deal of potential.
So, thank you, 4e, for epic destinies.
One way in which 4e distinguishes epic-level characters is that it gives each of them a bit of flavour about how they leave a lasting impact on the world. Granted, you do not have to be an extremely powerful character to have a lasting impact on the game world, and conversely, it should not be a requirement for every extremely powerful character to have a lasting impact on the world, but in the special case of the PCs, it is not a bad idea to tie the two together.
For the player, it is an opportunity to look beyond the mechanics and consider the issue of how he would like his character to be remembered in the game world. For the DM, it is a source of inspiration for quests and challenges – ideally, the adventures in the epic tier should relate to the PCs' epic destinies, and every successful quest should bring one or more of the PCs closer to their goals, which would be reflected in the new powers that they gain.
Of course, it does not always pan out this way in actual play, but I still think that epic destinies are an intriguing concept with a great deal of potential.
So, thank you, 4e, for epic destinies.
A Cosmology that makes sense
I am thankful for a Cosmology that I can introduce to new gamers without cringing.
The Fey and The Shadow as well as the Elemental Chaos and the Astral Sea are evocative Places that invite exciting adventures. The Dawn War and the Shard of Evil actually give a Structure to the world that can be explained quickly and makes sense. Moreover, every creature has a place in the world which makes it feel very real yet fantastic.
And the best thing: They can't take the sky from me; I can continue to use this cosmology no matter how much they mess up with 5ed.
I am thankful for a Cosmology that I can introduce to new gamers without cringing.
The Fey and The Shadow as well as the Elemental Chaos and the Astral Sea are evocative Places that invite exciting adventures. The Dawn War and the Shard of Evil actually give a Structure to the world that can be explained quickly and makes sense. Moreover, every creature has a place in the world which makes it feel very real yet fantastic.
And the best thing: They can't take the sky from me; I can continue to use this cosmology no matter how much they mess up with 5ed.
The Little Raven
First Post
The Fighter aka the motherfrakking gold standard of Defenders.
'nuff said.
'nuff said.
FireLance
Legend
This is up late because of internet troubles.
6. Healing Surges
Well, not really.
I must admit that if I were to demand the same level of precision of myself that I ask of people who say that they don't like healing surges, I would have to say that I'm not actually thankful for healing surges.
I am thankful for a number of elements that are related to healing surges, but do not actually require healing surges and can be implemented without them.
First off, I am thankful for healing that is proportional to total hit points. A spell or ability that restores hit points generally has the same relative effect whether you have 30 or 130 hit points. You don't get situations where a spell or ability which is enough to bring a low-level character from dying to full hit points has barely any visible effect when used on a high-level character.
Next, I am thankful that characters have the ability to restore their own hit points. It makes characters generally more self-sufficient, which makes solo adventures more viable. It also makes the party as a whole more resilent in the event that the party healer has used up all of his healing abilities or is out of action, or if nobody wants to play a healer-type character.
I am also thankful for non-magical hit point recovery, which has some overlap with Martial Power, above.
Finally, I am thankful that 4e's understanding of the action economy makes healing quick and/or significant. In my view, it is pointless to spend a standard action to heal yourself or your ally if the amount healed is insignficant relative to the damage that your enemies are expected to deal. If you have to give up a standard action to use a healing ability, at the very least, it should restore enough hit points to your target to enable it to take another action under normal circumstances.
It's a little difficult to get all of the above into a single sentence, though, so for brevity and simplicity, I will just summarize and say:
So, thank you, 4e, for healing surges.
6. Healing Surges
Well, not really.
I must admit that if I were to demand the same level of precision of myself that I ask of people who say that they don't like healing surges, I would have to say that I'm not actually thankful for healing surges.
I am thankful for a number of elements that are related to healing surges, but do not actually require healing surges and can be implemented without them.
First off, I am thankful for healing that is proportional to total hit points. A spell or ability that restores hit points generally has the same relative effect whether you have 30 or 130 hit points. You don't get situations where a spell or ability which is enough to bring a low-level character from dying to full hit points has barely any visible effect when used on a high-level character.
Next, I am thankful that characters have the ability to restore their own hit points. It makes characters generally more self-sufficient, which makes solo adventures more viable. It also makes the party as a whole more resilent in the event that the party healer has used up all of his healing abilities or is out of action, or if nobody wants to play a healer-type character.
I am also thankful for non-magical hit point recovery, which has some overlap with Martial Power, above.
Finally, I am thankful that 4e's understanding of the action economy makes healing quick and/or significant. In my view, it is pointless to spend a standard action to heal yourself or your ally if the amount healed is insignficant relative to the damage that your enemies are expected to deal. If you have to give up a standard action to use a healing ability, at the very least, it should restore enough hit points to your target to enable it to take another action under normal circumstances.
It's a little difficult to get all of the above into a single sentence, though, so for brevity and simplicity, I will just summarize and say:
So, thank you, 4e, for healing surges.
CroBob
First Post
I want to step in here and say that I'm thankful for Less daily powers. I've never liked resources limited by the day. Not only do they make a missed or otherwise failed daily ability useless and a waste of a turn, they also just plain don't make sense. How does succeeding at casting a spell make you forget the spell until you read it again?
It does add some resource management to the game, making it an awesome thing when the perfect spell works in the perfect situation, but I also don't want an instant win button.
Mostly, though, it eliminated napping for the night even though everyone just woke up an hour earlier.
It does add some resource management to the game, making it an awesome thing when the perfect spell works in the perfect situation, but I also don't want an instant win button.
Mostly, though, it eliminated napping for the night even though everyone just woke up an hour earlier.
FireLance
Legend
7. Skill Challenges
What is the difference between a 1e thief who, when confronted with a chest, makes a Find/Remove Traps check, and one who turns the chest to the wall, and asks his magic-user friend to get his unseen servant to open the chest while the entire party takes cover behind a table turned makeshift barrier?
In a nutshell, it is (to me) very similar to the difference between the most basic way to run a skill challenge and the most interesting way to do so.
I think the 4e skill challenge framework was intended to deliver a number of objectives. First, it would encourage participation from all the PCs (as opposed to only the thief character being involved in finding and removing traps). Second, it would allow for multiple approaches to overcome any challenge (as opposed to requiring a thief character and/or magic). Third, it would present a basic mechanical framework and suitable rewards for overcoming any non-combat challenge.
Unfortunately, the "X successes before 3 failures" model tended to discourage participation from PCs with poor skill modifiers, and a very mechanical implementation of the skill challenge framework (perhaps by a DM who is less willing to work outside of the box) would not allow for more imaginative ways to overcome the challenge apart from rolling the necessary skill checks.
Still, the skill challenge framework has a great deal of potential, and can be made more interesting by developing more models to determine success and failure. It is also quite useful as an additional tool for the DM to use in managing non-combat challenges in addition to more traditional open-ended approaches. Being able to tie rewards for non-combat challenges to an fairly objective framework is also a bonus.
So, thank you, 4e, for skill challenges.
What is the difference between a 1e thief who, when confronted with a chest, makes a Find/Remove Traps check, and one who turns the chest to the wall, and asks his magic-user friend to get his unseen servant to open the chest while the entire party takes cover behind a table turned makeshift barrier?
In a nutshell, it is (to me) very similar to the difference between the most basic way to run a skill challenge and the most interesting way to do so.
I think the 4e skill challenge framework was intended to deliver a number of objectives. First, it would encourage participation from all the PCs (as opposed to only the thief character being involved in finding and removing traps). Second, it would allow for multiple approaches to overcome any challenge (as opposed to requiring a thief character and/or magic). Third, it would present a basic mechanical framework and suitable rewards for overcoming any non-combat challenge.
Unfortunately, the "X successes before 3 failures" model tended to discourage participation from PCs with poor skill modifiers, and a very mechanical implementation of the skill challenge framework (perhaps by a DM who is less willing to work outside of the box) would not allow for more imaginative ways to overcome the challenge apart from rolling the necessary skill checks.
Still, the skill challenge framework has a great deal of potential, and can be made more interesting by developing more models to determine success and failure. It is also quite useful as an additional tool for the DM to use in managing non-combat challenges in addition to more traditional open-ended approaches. Being able to tie rewards for non-combat challenges to an fairly objective framework is also a bonus.
So, thank you, 4e, for skill challenges.
Yep. And this relates to the cosmology that [MENTION=18615]Harlekin[/MENTION] mentioned, because (most) Epic Destinies locate the PC, either expressly or by implication, within the cosmological drama of the game. So instead of being a metaplot that the GM uses to beat the players round the head (I'm thinking here of some Planescape material that I know) the cosmology becomes a source of player agency, that pretty much guarantees that the stakes of the game will grow appropritely as the PCs gain levels.
Agreed on this too. For anyone that missed it, here is a link to my thread of thanks to skill challenges.
FireLance
Legend
8. Feat-Based Multiclassing
The 4e approach to multiclassing is quite different from the mechanics previously used. By spending a feat, a character could pick up an ability from another class (or a weaker version of it), and by taking additional feats, he could exchange powers from his orginal class for powers from his new class.
Mechanically, it is perhaps the most balanced approach to multiclassing to date. Although the initial multiclass feat is perhaps a little too good compared to regular feats, and the need to spend additional feats to swap powers seems somewhat dubious since powers of equal level are supposed to be of approximately equal strength, these are actually quite minor issues.
From the narrative perspective, it represents a more organic way to pick up new abilities from another class, i.e. slowly and one at a time. It is also a good way to represent a character who is just dabbling in another class.
4e could have gone further to develop additional options for characters who want to go deeper into their second class (and IMO, the paragon multiclassing rules don't quite cut it). However, that is a matter of developing additional material, and not a fundamental problem with the basic mechanics.
So, thank you, 4e, for feat-based multiclassing.
The 4e approach to multiclassing is quite different from the mechanics previously used. By spending a feat, a character could pick up an ability from another class (or a weaker version of it), and by taking additional feats, he could exchange powers from his orginal class for powers from his new class.
Mechanically, it is perhaps the most balanced approach to multiclassing to date. Although the initial multiclass feat is perhaps a little too good compared to regular feats, and the need to spend additional feats to swap powers seems somewhat dubious since powers of equal level are supposed to be of approximately equal strength, these are actually quite minor issues.
From the narrative perspective, it represents a more organic way to pick up new abilities from another class, i.e. slowly and one at a time. It is also a good way to represent a character who is just dabbling in another class.
4e could have gone further to develop additional options for characters who want to go deeper into their second class (and IMO, the paragon multiclassing rules don't quite cut it). However, that is a matter of developing additional material, and not a fundamental problem with the basic mechanics.
So, thank you, 4e, for feat-based multiclassing.
