What do you like about 4e?

[Crashy75]

Like the title says, what do you like about 4e?

There are a few 4isms that I think are decent. Here's a list of the top of my head:

General mechanics:

- Second Wind. Reduces healing dependency.

- Condensed skill list. I think all skills should be useful in some way. However, I prefer a synthesis of pathfinder and 4e. I hate that they got rid of craft skills. But this thread is not about what I h4te so I'll stick to what I like!

- Opportunity actions- One per combatant per turn. A clear nod to the meat shields. However, it is a mark against them that so few actions provoke them. So, not that aspect of OA's. And I'd still call them AoO's. Why change the name I don't know.

- Some class abilities- For example, I like fighters combat challenge (NOT "Roles" in such an official sense) and combat superiority. These allow him to be more than just a speed bump.

- Rituals. I think they should be altered a bit however. Wizards should not be able to learn 'cleric' rituals. I'd divide them among the 'big three' Wizards would cast 'rituals', Clerics would perform 'rites' and Druids/Shamen 'ceremonies' for flavor reasons.

- Disease/poison/other special Track and Progression. I like this and think it could be expanded. Some things work slowly through the system and can be used as tension builders and are conceptually feasible (as opposed to 'realistic')

What about you?

[Aus_Snow]

Page 42 is OK in some ways. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing - or working/collaborating on - a '3e/d20 page 42'. . .

Hm.

[Crashy75]

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Page 42 is OK in some ways. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing - or working/collaborating on - a '3e/d20 page 42'. . .

Hm.

Ummm, what???

EDIT: You mean like the secret to the universe?

[Kerrick]

I think the mythical "page 42" is the one in the DMG that says "You can do whatever you want" - similar to 1E.

As for what I like... at-will cantrips. I don't have a lot of in-depth knowledge of the system (what I saw in the previews, and from skimming the actual books, turned me off to 4E on the whole), so I can't really add more. I have a feeling most of the folks here will say the same.

[Aus_Snow]

Specifically, I meant the oft-praised (right or wrong) table of DCs and damage rolls for doing 'stuff' at various levels, with some factors in mind. Mainly, physically interacting with the environment, terrain, whatever - and of course your intended victim. A set of 'stunting' guidelines, more or less. But a very simple one, compared to some that can be found in various d20 supplements.

I don't know whether I'd use it, but I get the feeling some might. It seems that there are quite a few gamers who like one or two (or a few more) things about 4e, but prefer 3e/d20/OGL overall. It might end up being useful.

I'll think about getting that one together, if I perceive enough interest, or just feel like it one day. Or hey, if someone else wants to do it now, that's cool. Or collaborate, that's fine too.

Just a thought. *Not* my highest priority for RPG design, atm.

[Tilenas]

There are indeed a few things I like very much about 4E. Not enough to beat 3.x, but some things are really an improvement in my book:

• the level modifier. Already kind of implicit in some 3.5-mechanics (special ability save DCs). Gets rid of high level BAB/save disparity between classes as well as BAB/AC disparity.
• skill challenges. Poorly executed, but finally a step away from the combat-focused ruleset that relegates all mechanics concerning adventuring and social interaction to the sidelines.
• powers for everyone. Again, the results may be considered awkward, but it is the only way to overcome the Tyranny of the Spellcasters. If that necessitates a nerfing of the wizard, so be it.
• concise skill list. A major complaint of my players was that many characters got too few skill points. I believe that the skill list was simply too fragmented (examples abound) for the number of skill points granted.

There may be more, but those are certainly the most important positive aspects of 4E for me.

[starwed]

I like that monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs.

I like condensed skills, and the elimination of skill points.

The idea of a healing surge is neat.

I think that in general, the economy of actions is handled better.

Having a distinction between rituals and spells is probably a good idea.

I don't like 4e classes, which is what prevents me from playing much.

[Hereticus]

The best thing about 4.0E is they got rid of LA and HD ratings for character classes. The cantrips are good too. The skill system is better, but the feats are worse.

Originally Posted by Crashy75

Second Wind. Reduces healing dependency.

Since they killed off real Clerics of the 3.5E variety (and all spell casters), they needed to find a way for the Fighters to heal themselves, since most all character classes look like some sort of Fighter.

Originally Posted by Crashy75

Condensed skill list. I think all skills should be useful in some way. However, I prefer a synthesis of pathfinder and 4e. I hate that they got rid of craft skills. But this thread is not about what I h4te so I'll stick to what I like!

The skill system is much better. And if you want craft skills, add them as a house rule.

Originally Posted by Crashy75

Rituals. I think they should be altered a bit however. Wizards should not be able to learn 'cleric' rituals. I'd divide them among the 'big three' Wizards would cast 'rituals', Clerics would perform 'rites' and Druids/Shamen 'ceremonies' for flavor reasons.

The ritual system is completely broken. They are too costly to buy and to use, and they take way to long to cast. Other than killing off spell caster classes, this is possibly the worst aspect of 4.0E.

I'm sure there are other game systems that don't have spell casters... D&D 4.0E can be added to that list.

[Kerrick]

Ooh, count me for another vote for skill condensation. That's really a no-brainer, though, for anyone who's played 3.5 for more than, oh, a month. (Yeah, I'm being a little sarcastic tonight, sue me. )

Rituals are a good idea, in theory, but the 4E practice of "Let's make everything that's not a combat spell into a ritual!" goes over like a lead balloon. I came up with ritual rules a few years ago, so it wasn't much work to revise and adapt them to the new rules (mine, not 4E). I've found that making things like planar binding/planar ally, the "raise from the dead" spells, and a few others into rituals makes them a good bit more balanced AND flavorful.

The table of DCs and such does sound like a good idea. We've got one in the 3.5 DMG, on page 31, but it only applies to skills...

[Hereticus]

Originally Posted by Kerrick

Rituals are a good idea, in theory, but the 4E practice of "Let's make everything that's not a combat spell into a ritual!" goes over like a lead balloon.

So many spells that may have been useful in combat now take ten minutes to cast.

I can see Raise Dead or a conjuring spell being a ritual, but leave most of the rest alone.

[Knight-of-Roses]

Like, the idea of the ritual system, but not how it actually works.

More tactical flexibility/everyone gets to do neat stuff is a neat concept. However, in my limited play experience, I have not seen that the actual execution of 4e combat is that much superior to 3.x.

Non-magical ways to heal. But not that everyone can get beat down and just 'get better' by resting for 10 minutes. Non-magical ways to heal, good. Knowing you can fully heal after every fight with minimal use of resources, not so good.

So, yeah, for every mechanic plus there is a minus.

I like quite a bit of the flavor writing though . . .

[Crashy75]

Originally Posted by Knight-of-Roses

Like, the idea of the ritual system, but not how it actually works.

More tactical flexibility/everyone gets to do neat stuff is a neat concept. However, in my limited play experience, I have not seen that the actual execution of 4e combat is that much superior to 3.x.

Non-magical ways to heal. But not that everyone can get beat down and just 'get better' by resting for 10 minutes. Non-magical ways to heal, good. Knowing you can fully heal after every fight with minimal use of resources, not so good.

So, yeah, for every mechanic plus there is a minus.

I like quite a bit of the flavor writing though . . .

I agree with everything in this post.

[Crashy75]

Originally Posted by Hereticus

So many spells that may have been useful in combat now take ten minutes to cast.

I can see Raise Dead or a conjuring spell being a ritual, but leave most of the rest alone.

I agree about the casting time and $ issue. (I'm sure I saw a decent fix somewhere around here. Also, when I get time I will be checking out Kerrick's ritual system). Though, I think some rituals could/should take a long time to cast (though that would mostly be in the plot related dm domain (evil priest casting a rare ritual to free a world-devouring Old One for example.)

[Grazzt]

Originally Posted by starwed

I like that monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs.

I like condensed skills, and the elimination of skill points.

The idea of a healing surge is neat.

I think that in general, the economy of actions is handled better.

Having a distinction between rituals and spells is probably a good idea.

I don't like 4e classes, which is what prevents me from playing much.

Pretty much agree with Starwed myself

[Hereticus]

Originally Posted by Crashy75

I agree about the casting time and $ issue. (I'm sure I saw a decent fix somewhere around here. Also, when I get time I will be checking out Kerrick's ritual system). Though, I think some rituals could/should take a long time to cast (though that would mostly be in the plot related dm domain (evil priest casting a rare ritual to free a world-devouring Old One for example.)

You are right, but I was talking about spells that may have been used during an encounter.

Not that I would put this past anyone to do so, but it is a rare occasion when some one tries to summon a demon lord during a battle or while negotiating with the city guard.

Yes, some rituals should be very time consuming and very expensive.