D&D 4E What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm trying to decide if I agree with this or not. I think -to an extent- I do. However, I am also aware that s4E is honestly what prompted me to move beyond D&D and try other rpgs. I think 4th Edition does a lot of things right, but there are some things it does (in my opinion) wrong which I'll never get used to.

Well, yeah, as I said there are actual issues with 4e. I just think they are perfectly understandable in the light of it being a completely new game. MANY of them fall into the realm of comparison to previous editions, but it really did stray from the mark somewhat in terms of play at the table.

Combat really is too slow. The tactical teamwork encounter concept is nice, but there are simply too many competing options, too many things to track, and a lack of any ability to make really quickly decisive moves. The whole super precise formulaic encounter paradigm makes DM prep easy and reliable but adventures seem to inevitably fall into a rather fixed overall rut that you really have to consciously break out of. You CAN do a lot more in 4e that was pretty much impossible in 3.x but the DM needs to work it. Things otherwise are so reliable that adventures just seem to take their inevitable course. With earlier editions the game was always in a state of semi-pear-shaped mess, but in a way that kind of forced a certain amount of DM creativity. There was a sort of "oh wow, look what happened" kind of thing that went on that probably drove adventure writers nuts but added a certain fun element.

The other aspect that I see, coming from playing all way back since the mid 70's, is just that the complexity of the game has gotten way out of hand. It goes along with the clockwork encounter/adventure thing. Should the game go pear-shaped for the party you're looking at a lot of work invested and a lot of downtime to build up new characters.

Rolling up a PC and filling out a character sheet back in 1974 took all of 5 minutes, tops. That included hand drawing the character sheet on a sheet of blank paper, rolling dice, filling it in, and making all of the 4-5 choices you had to make. Heck, the first time I ever played I was what, 12? It still took 5 minutes to roll up a PC cold without even knowing the rules. Maybe in 1e/2e that was up to 15 minutes (and we had printed sheets), but remember, this was by hand, no character builders, no reference material, nothing, just a pencil, a sheet, some dice, and the PHB. Maybe it took 20 minutes if you were a magic user or a cleric. Nowadays? Heck, you can't expect someone to do it in 45 minutes using a character builder program that no matter how much anyone complains about it is 4,000 times better than anything we ever had before. Sure, you CAN just push all the 'take the defaults' buttons but what you get is crap and STILL takes 20-30 minutes.

The game simply desperately needs to be stripped back down some and a little more uncertainty reinjected into the game. This is where 4e really did miss the mark. Leveling the playing field between all classes and getting rid of a lot of problematic mechanics and game elements worked well. Things like healing surges, the skill system, etc are all great, but that didn't have to go hand-in-hand with removing practically all uncertainty from how encounters would go. Leave in these good elements so that you can viably play any character of any class and the DM can easily build good plots, but strip the character building process back down to 5 minutes, let encounters be swingier, drastically reduce required system mastery, and get rid of most elements that require tracking during combat. It IS possible.

That would be a highly polished 4e successor which might still piss off a good number of traditionalists, but it would have the fast loose play of OSR type games and the good aspects of 4e. We're probably 80% of the way there.

 

[jimmifett]

More things I like about 4e:
Class system. Regardless of my choice of PP or ED, i'm still whatever base class I started as at the core. I don't stop being that base class, I continue to grow in it while expanding via my PP and ED.

Multiclassing. I can dip my toe in a class to get some abilities and flavor, not needing to spend a whole level in it.

Hybrid Classes. Yes, I know they aren't normally as powerful as full classes, but if i have a wonky character in my mind that no single class covers by itself, I can fall back to hybrids and come up with something fun without having to reinvent the wheel.

Charging. I much prefer 4e charging than 3.x charging.

Gamist. When I want to model real life, I play GURPS (which I enjoy). It's a much better system for that than any edition of DnD.

At-Wills. A fun concept. I like fun. I think having just 2 (3 for humans) is a bit limiting and gives rise to at-will spam complaints. A tough point to balance on, but I think having an additional at-will would be nice.

Easy to read. My eyes are getting tired quicker in my older age, I don't want background art making it difficult to read stuff, like the 3.x books. PF is nicer to read than 3.x, but I still have to read entire paragraphs of text to find the key piece of a feature I was looking for. The way 4e lays out features, powers, and items gives me the info I need in an easy standardized format that I can glance at and instantly find what I need to know at the moment.

More things I don't like about 4e:
The Stealth/Concealment rules. I wouldn't exactly say I don't like them, but it's been a sore spot for so long, and I still feel they could use better wording in some way. They've come a long way, but i think there is a tiny bit more to go.

Longer combats. This is more due to players that are bad at math, don't know how to run thier character, and don't roleplay out their actions to at least make combat interesting. With the right players, this ceases to be an issue, both time wise, and interesting wise. This can be found in any system really.


More things I like about other D20 Systems:
Richer Source Material. 4e has some pretty good source material, such as demonomicon and the newest monster vault, but until recently, I feel wotc was briefly touching down to apease a segment before taking off again to the next, giving just enough to wet appetite. I can understand the logic behind that, there were a ton of setting info in 3rd edition, everyone moans about having to rebuy books anyway, why not let the DM run with the basics of a setting and they can find older fluff material if they need more, or make it themselves. It's a perfectly valid, and smart strategy. While obviously 3rd parties can't get in on the big DnD settings like Eberron and FR and such, PF has done a great job with fleshing out thier own world.

More things I don't like about other D20 Systems:
Multiclassing. Except for D20 Modern, which I think is an OK multiclass system, and SAGA, I don't like a lot of the multiclassing of 3.x. It's entirely my personal preference. Having to dip just far enough into a class to get a feature I want... don't like it. I think prestiges should have been something you can take in addition to your base class at a given level for which you qualify, but you can only take one level of a prestige at a time. I guess that would make prestiges like a template or theme you can slide over your base class. I never liked replacing the base.

Multiple Attacks. It takes a full round action to miss multiple times. How about instead you just add damage dice instead and have one attack. Yes, I already know the counter argument: "If you miss once, you do no damage, with multiple attack rolls, you can average out the damage even with misses". Don't care. I want to roll lots of damage dice when I hit, like wizards. Rolling lots of dice is fun. I want fun.

Sometimes Hard to read. 3.x was bad when it came to having distraction backgrounds behind text. Not so much of a problem with PF, but you know what, stylized cursive can be a pain in the ass to read when I want to know the name of a deity or whatever. White Wolf, while not d20, is the WORST offender in having books that I can't read because they wanted to be fancy with the text. If I can't read your book, why am I going to buy it?


Things I don't like regardless of system:
OGL/GSL. This is not part of a rules discussion or part of what makes a system good. This is legalese and rights management. OGL does not make a system good or bad. GSL does not make a system good or bad. These two things always boils down to ideology which has NOTHING to do with the game itself. I personally think wotc shot itself in the foot with OGL and gave away the farm, a bad move money wise (and there is NOTHING wrong with making a buck). However, without it, there wouldn't be PF, which would be a shame, but there wouldn't also be the slew of other horrible games out there. I think wotc learned a lot from the business mistakes in making the OGL, but then shot itself in the other foot by not having the GSL ready early enough, restricted 3rd parties too much in a world where the OGL already existed, and was slow to change it to make it palatable to 3rd parties. Again, all this has NOTHING to do with the game systems themselves and is not a valid point in the merrit of any system as a player / DM.

 

[catastrophic]

I don't think there'd be many fans of 4e who would resent a 5e that was like 4e, but with faster combats or even just faster rounds.

I feel like it's the round time that is a big part of the problem, and things would be faster/more fun if the rounds were simpler, shorter, and meant quicker passes around the table. Keep everyone engaged, focus on interplay between the players round by round.

Imagine if instead of daily powers, you had combo powers, that you could build over successive rounds, using your own powers, and the powers of your allies.

Each round itself would be only a small amount of time, a single simple action, with a bit more time spend on the round when your combo fires off.

 

[illwizard]

I liked fourth edition alot but admittedly I was really thrown out by essentials and stopped playing soon after the release. From what I've read and heard, the new essentials stuff seems cool and something I might like, but that in itself was more frustrating for me. As much as they are additional rules to the system, they just don't feel like it and it annoyed me that Wizards had made me want to buy into it all again 'cause I wouldn't be hangin' with the cool kids if I didn't. I spent alot of money on 4th ed books and now I'm finding out from earlier replies that the PHB and DMG are virtually useless/redundant? That's what turns me off currently anyway.

But saying that, i'm playing in a new 4th ed (non essentials) game soon which I'm pretty excited about.

Also on the issue of grind, for my group it's generally the players fault. I get through my turn quickly enough but others not so much. Cheers

 

[Skyscraper]

Ok, ok, forget the fighter example. You're right of course, the fighter was not the strongest combatant. I know, the mage (and the cleric) in previous editions had game-changing spells, I've played for 30 years and I've seen it a gazillion times. I meant to say that fighters were feared melee fighters. My bad for a wrong formulation here. And yes, fighters in 4E are a really nice class.

That wasn't the point I wanted to convey.

AD&D and 3E (and 2E, but I didn't play it) had radical differences in classes, and that brought something cool to the game. I still prefer 4E, and I especially like some of the changes proposed in Essentials in that respect; but I still think that the classes lack something unique, perhaps I could call them unique mechanics, as opposed to unique powers based on the same mechanic. Different mechanics that will make each class shine, really shine, in some aspects of the game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Rolling up a PC and filling out a character sheet back in 1974 took all of 5 minutes, tops. That included hand drawing the character sheet on a sheet of blank paper, rolling dice, filling it in, and making all of the 4-5 choices you had to make...

It took us as many as 15, but that was because we had to write our character sheets out on loose leaf. I'm not kidding--we couldn't afford printed sheets when we started. Later, I typed some up, and spent 2 dollars running some off at a local copy place. We'd erase and reuse.

But I agree with you. Actually, I'd go even further. A truly excellent edition of D&D should have a basic version for which you can put everything needed to play levels 1-7 (or so) on a single sheet of paper. And without too much crowding. This is not so much a requirement as a test. If the edition can't meet it, then it is either too complicated, or not modular enough, or both.

That assumes spell look ups or power cards or what not are separate. I don't mind that, since having all the text of "snappy thing you can do" separate is a fine way to handle it for those of us who don't like looking it up or whose memories aren't quite as good as they were in 1981. But the core parts of what the character can do should all be listed on that one page.

 

[Skyscraper]

That assumes spell look ups or power cards or what not are separate. I don't mind that, since having all the text of "snappy thing you can do" separate is a fine way to handle it for those of us who don't like looking it up or whose memories aren't quite as good as they were in 1981. But the core parts of what the character can do should all be listed on that one page.

I agree, but I think that the mechanics of spells and powers should also appear on that one page. The DDM (Dungeon & Dragons Miniatures) game did a fine job of providing functional combat stats for a single creature on one-ninth of a page. If you print a bit larger, if you add other non-combat elements and details on the sheet, I cannot imagine that you couldn't end up with a full functional PC writeup on a single side of a piece of paper, with space to spare.

I've been hoping for such a feat from WotC for 4th edition. I still don't get why powers take up a full ninth of a page when they could be written up in 1-2 lines in DDM. (Some powers are admitedly longer than others, but they are the exception).

For example:

Cleave (Encounter): one target, + 7 vs FORT; 1d10 + 5 AND one enemy adjacent to target takes 4 damage.

Sleep(Daily): all targets in burst 2 within 20; + 6 vs WILL; target is slowed (save ends); first failed save: target is unconscious instead of slowed (save ends). MISS: target is slowed (save ends).

Thunderwave (At-will): all targets in close blast 3; + 5 vs FORT; 1d6 + 4 thunder damage and target is pushed 3 squares.

The actions should be separated at the outset between move, standard, minor, etc... in different sections of the sheet like for monsters.

The only thing missing, I believe, is keywords. I'd probably omit them from the main character sheet. Since this sheet is customized for the PC, all bonuses are already calculated so you don't need to determine on the fly whether your weapon's magical bonuses applies since it's already in there. In the rare situations when you need those keywords, you check the book (or the compendium), like in the days of old when you wanted the odd info about your spell.

That would make things much easier for a vast majority of players I'm sure, but mostly for new players.

 

[mudlock]

A truly excellent edition of D&D should have a basic version for which you can put everything needed to play levels 1-7 (or so) on a single sheet of paper. [...] That assumes spell look ups or power cards or what not are separate. [...] But the core parts of what the character can do should all be listed on that one page.

Are you saying this is not currently the case?

Because that's what I've been doing since the beginning of this edition and through to today. (I used to not even use cards, but crammed all my powers (and equipment) onto the back of the page.) It does start getting a bit crowded in paragon, but you only asked for up to level 7; I'd say 4e passes your test.

I even use a sheet of loose-leaf white lined paper (college ruled, of course) not a printout, although I use a separate piece of scrap paper to track current hps, surges, and action points (so when I erase through the page I don't have to rewrite the whole sheet.)

The official character sheets are a terrible waste of space.

 

[mudlock]

The only thing missing, I believe, is keywords.

Two solutions. One: Inline (most of) them. Most keywords are the type of damage, which is repeated in the power description; bold them when they occur. (2d6+int lightning damage)

Effect types aren't usually called out inline, so they would have to be dropped (bad idea I think) or included explicitly.

But power sources and tools don't usually appear inline either. Either include them somewhere or, solution two: more icons. You used the melee and burst icons in your examples, lets have a "weapon" and "implement" icon and icons for martial, arcane, divine, etc. (Or forget them, since MOST characters will have the same source and tool icons for every single one of their powers (some MC and hybrids (and poor retro clerics and paladins) excepted.))

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Two solutions. One: Inline (most of) them. Most keywords are the type of damage, which is repeated in the power description; bold them when they occur. (2d6+int lightning damage)

Effect types aren't usually called out inline, so they would have to be dropped (bad idea I think) or included explicitly.

But power sources and tools don't usually appear inline either. Either include them somewhere or, solution two: more icons. You used the melee and burst icons in your examples, lets have a "weapon" and "implement" icon and icons for martial, arcane, divine, etc. (Or forget them, since MOST characters will have the same source and tool icons for every single one of their powers (some MC and hybrids (and poor retro clerics and paladins) excepted.))

Yeah, I think my opinion is characters are still fundamentally a lot more complex in 4e. You CAN make a pretty usable 1 page sheet, but when I say simple I suspect most people don't actually appreciate just how DIRT simple OD&D characters were. You had 6 stats, HP, AC, XP, GOLD, CLASS, LEVEL, your weapon, damage, any items you carried, and that was about it. A thief had abilities (but you could look those up) and casters had a couple spells. I recall routinely putting 4 PCs on a sheet before starting a game. Usually one would survive to 3rd level and get written on a new sheet.

Ok, ok, forget the fighter example. You're right of course, the fighter was not the strongest combatant. I know, the mage (and the cleric) in previous editions had game-changing spells, I've played for 30 years and I've seen it a gazillion times. I meant to say that fighters were feared melee fighters. My bad for a wrong formulation here. And yes, fighters in 4E are a really nice class.

That wasn't the point I wanted to convey.

AD&D and 3E (and 2E, but I didn't play it) had radical differences in classes, and that brought something cool to the game. I still prefer 4E, and I especially like some of the changes proposed in Essentials in that respect; but I still think that the classes lack something unique, perhaps I could call them unique mechanics, as opposed to unique powers based on the same mechanic. Different mechanics that will make each class shine, really shine, in some aspects of the game.

OK. I am not sure I'd really like to see the return of significantly different mechanics for each class though myself. I think Essentials has proven that you can do a pretty wide variety of things within the same core framework. I'm not sure I exactly really like the details of the way they did it, but it does inarguably work.

My feeling is that 4e characters (classic PHB style ones) ARE in actual play as different as the classes in any previous version were, but the way they achieved it was rather incremental. Instead of having 2-3 big features that clearly blocked out exactly what the character is about they have a number of smaller synergistic features, certain patterns of power design, etc that effectively implement the idea, but don't always seem to hit the players hard enough on the head with it. When you play a BS rogue and a hard hitting great weapon fighter you SEE the differences, but they are emergent properties. While this is some fairly elegant game design it seems to create a presentation problem.

I'd think a redesign would want to feature a more 'beat you over the head with it' sort of class design. I'd also reduce the number and variety of powers and make them individually more significant and more clearly delineated between classes. That would emphasize the differences more explicitly and also simplify achieving a specific concept, character generation in general, and play at the table as well. Even so I would do all of that within the sort of framework 4e uses. I might have to change a good amount of numbers and rework certain game elements a bit, but it seems doable.