What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?

[Kraydak]

I wanted late 3.5E, collected and reassembled into a PHB/DMG/MM trio with some whitewashing along the way. Keeping, of course, all the lessons learned from 1e to the MIC, including the fact that DM fiat turns out to blow without good DMs.

Roughly, then, 3.5e modulo Bo9S, MIC item design lessons, divine feats, wild feats. Add in improved monster design (rationalize monster HD, a la "all class levels count the same"). Improve the power balance for summonings/polymorphs without losing the magic (add a summoning level/polymorph level to go along with CR and make long-duration summons/polys more feasible). Smooth some of the mechanics (turn undead, grappling) and voila.

Don't: cheese out and cut/gimp everything hard (like summons/polymorph/magic item economy/NPC design).

I really feel that 3E was too successful, and that the designers forgot all the bad things about 1E/2E that PC/NPC transparency, magic item economy, standardized rule sets etc... helped to fix. Competent DMs that wing the rules, design rule sets that only work if you bend the rules, and so we get Skill Challenge rules where all the advice includes a line amounting to "and then you ignore the skill challenge rules". I don't think the WotC designers ever actually played skill challenges by their rules.

 

[Felon]

And examples of some of these would be?

Stuff like cashing in the fighter's Weapon Talent for Tempest and BRV fighters, the selection of powers and magic items that are just flat-out better than others in their category...i.e. stuff that's been discussed in a bunch of other threads that you've likely read and participated in.

My pet peccadillo remains that 4e currently has a vast lack of parity between the [W] powers far and non-W classes. More damage out of the box, more damage still from Superior Weapons, free properties like High Crit, and the design decision that monsters won't have Resist [W]. It's bizarre to me that the discrepancy between W-haves and W-have-nots isn't a hotter topic, but I guess it's mostly to do with only two of the eight PHB classes being really left in the cold by the discrepancy.

I remember starting a thread about the playtest barbarian and whether or not it was over-the-top with powers like Rage Strike that could be exploited for nova-like effect. Most rebuttals consisted of comparing it to other OTT powers of the "other two strikers", the ranger and the rogue. The warlock, to their minds, doesn't even exist.

 

[billd91]

S
My pet peccadillo remains that 4e currently has a vast lack of parity between the [W] powers far and non-W classes. More damage out of the box, more damage still from Superior Weapons, free properties like High Crit, and the design decision that monsters won't have Resist [W]. It's bizarre to me that the discrepancy between W-haves and W-have-nots isn't a hotter topic, but I guess it's mostly to do with only two of the eight PHB classes being really left in the cold by the discrepancy.

I can see what you're getting at here. The one thing I think that might rein that in a little is having to hit an AC more times than not because that's typically one of the opposition's highest defenses. But I can see how you're coming to your conclusions.

For me, the cheesing of stats is more of a problem. While using the prime stat to determine most attacks is nice (int for wizards, etc), I find the whole package on stats to be a step backward from 3e. In 3e, most stats had some use for classes (Cha being the weakest except for paladins and clerics) but in 4e, depending on the class you pick and the focus in that class, you can really min-max things out and do so in ways that I don't think balance out. Take the rogue for example. If I go artful dodger, I can dump 3 stats (Str, Int, Wis) without major consequence. Sure, some skills suffer a little, my opportunity attacks are weak, and I can't carry as much, but my Con helps my Fort defense, hit points, and surges, my Dex helps my main attacks, my Ref defense, my AC, and initiative, and my Cha helps my dodger bonuses and my Will defense. But if I went the brutal thug route, I can't maximize both my offense and hit points/surges.

And for classes in general, unless you've got powers that need Int or the group desperately needs a knowledge skill filled (and, really, if you are into min-maxing, why aren't you concentrating knowledge skills with classes that are encouraged to have a good int?), Dex is always better to take because it helps both basic ranged attacks and initiative, something Dex's defense analog cannot do. At least in 3e, a good intelligence brought more skill points. That was often a very attractive prospect, not as easily dismissed as a few more points on knowledge skill rolls.

I like 3e's use of the stats better than 4e's.

 

[JackSmithIV]

Stuff like cashing in the fighter's Weapon Talent for Tempest and BRV fighters, the selection of powers and magic items that are just flat-out better than others in their category...i.e. stuff that's been discussed in a bunch of other threads that you've likely read and participated in.

In the optimization forums, someone proved that in 3.5, you can create a 5th level kobold that can become an all-powerful super-deity. Believe the Kobold was named Pun Pun. He was even able to emulate certain features of being a god-being (infinite hit dice, infinite reach across planes) in multiple ways.

Can you really compare that with a case of light power-creep and some damage descrepencies?

 

[Vegepygmy]

Can you really compare that with a case of light power-creep and some damage descrepencies?

Yes, because the reality was that your 3E campaign was never going to see a Pun-Pun, but your 4E game is going to see that "light power-creep and some damage discrepancies."

Besides, by the time 4E has been around as long as 3E was when Pun-Pun became possible, I predict you'll have a 4E equivalent, too.

 

[JackSmithIV]

Besides, by the time 4E has been around as long as 3E was when Pun-Pun became possible, I predict you'll have a 4E equivalent, too.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Modular, balanced design philosophy. It's easier to catch things like that, and plan completely against them. 3rd Edition had inherent design flaws that led to Pun Pun. 4th Edition is not nearly as rules-bending, and avoids certain things entirely. By isolating certain mechanical aspects, such as keeping level drain, ability drain, and experience expenditures completely out of the system, and subscribing to a largely non-subsystem design philosophy, I believe they can entirely avoid nonsensical rules exploit.

Power creep (and very light power creep at that) is not a rules exploit. Neither are damage discrepancies. Allowing you to bounce infinite ability buffs off your viper pet is what happens when you design non-modular, open systems.

Modularity is the key, so you avoid a game system that spirals out of control. To say that 4th Edition is doing this with a minor semblance of what was happening with 3rd edition is a ridiculous and poorly thought-out statement. It's also just a lot of speculative nay-saying.

 

[Kraydak]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Modular, balanced design philosophy. It's easier to catch things like that, and plan completely against them. 3rd Edition had inherent design flaws that led to Pun Pun. 4th Edition is not nearly as rules-bending, and avoids certain things entirely. By isolating certain mechanical aspects, such as keeping level drain, ability drain, and experience expenditures completely out of the system, and subscribing to a largely non-subsystem design philosophy, I believe they can entirely avoid nonsensical rules exploit.

Power creep (and very light power creep at that) is not a rules exploit. Neither are damage discrepancies. Allowing you to bounce infinite ability buffs off your viper pet is what happens when you design non-modular, open systems.

Modularity is the key, so you avoid a game system that spirals out of control. To say that 4th Edition is doing this with a minor semblance of what was happening with 3rd edition is a ridiculous and poorly thought-out statement. It's also just a lot of speculative nay-saying.

One single (utterly broken) set of monster racial traits in a relatively obscure sourcebook (needed for PunPun)=unlikely to get abused.
Easy, obvious combos in a high profile player source book is another matter (Horizon Walker+whichever Warlord ED it is).

When you tie everything together (say, by making many/most abilities spell-like) then everything receives a lot more scrutiny. Modularity makes catastrophic synergies much, much more likely.

 

[Jack99]

One single (utterly broken) set of monster racial traits in a relatively obscure sourcebook (needed for PunPun)=unlikely to get abused.
Easy, obvious combos in a high profile player source book is another matter (Horizon Walker+whichever Warlord ED it is).

When you tie everything together (say, by making many/most abilities spell-like) then everything receives a lot more scrutiny. Modularity makes catastrophic synergies much, much more likely.

Just to set a few things straight. Pun-Pun works at first level (yes, 5th was back in the day) and the HW + Warmaster, doesn't break until 30th level, which is, like the end.

Anyway, I think this is quite relevant since you are trying to compare their brokeness.

 

[rounser]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Modular, balanced design philosophy. It's easier to catch things like that, and plan completely against them.

Tell me more about how 4E splat will somehow magically avoid history from repeating.

Modularity is the key, so you avoid a game system that spirals out of control.

Wha?

I don't see how "everything is core" is modular, except in the M:tG sense where everyone emphasises the broken stuff by selecting it specifically for use. And good luck saying no; everything is core, buster!

 

[Byronic]

I wanted a 4e that resembled the previews WotC put out. It might have been naivety on my part, but when the designers and developers of the game started talking about action points, milestones, and powers that lasted for the length of an encounter I envisioned a sort of unpretentious narrative focused game that melded together with the tactical game play and violent adventure story themes I enjoy. When the preview with the feats that allowed expanded uses for action points I jumped with joy - I was happy that WotC had embraced the use of in game resources to allow players to dramatically alter the game world. I'm disappointed that they later changed their minds.

My other major disappointment with 4e was how sparse the monster and world fluff became and the form it ended up taking. During the previews for 4e I was excited about the ways in which they were reimagining the default setting - I ate up the material in Worlds and Monsters, and I was excited about the fact that they had a team of designers working on the game's story elements. I wanted expansive story material that focused on thematic and setting elements that come about in actual play.

I think this sums up my opinion quite well. I tell my players to ignore everything but the mechanics in the PHB and to just look at the previews for inspiration. Besides stuff that I write for them.