D&D 4E An in depth rules discussion on the mechanical problems and breakthroughs of 4e

[Sadrik]

Interesting list! By and large I agree with the advantages, even though some of them - like the setting - aren't really mechanical.

Your right ;p

8. Lack of clarity on which portions of a power are linked to which keywords (based on the Tarrasque thread).

Explain this issue more I don't know it?

 

[Jack99]

Hi Sadrik. How many hours have you played 4e? Just a ball-park figure, if you will.

Thanks

 

[Argyuile]

7. Endless magical at-will attacks, should a wizard be able to magic missile all day?

Thank goodness. This is the thing that attracted me more than anything else to 4E. That and now wands and implements give you attack bonus' to your spells.

Best change eva.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

This relates to the stat polarity issue and is something that I’ve been thinking about for a while. With ‘point buy’, racial stat bonuses and powers being closely tied to individual stats, every character is created to fit his niche (role, class, build) perfectly. This is excellent for game balance but poor in terms of character variety. It seems that we’ll no longer see ‘off-type’ characters (e.g. tough wizards that can wield a blade and don’t mind going toe-to-toe once in a while. Or lightly armored, dual-wielding Halfling fighters) since every character who is not built optimally for his role/class/build will be at a disadvantage.

Note: I haven’t played 4e at all, nor do I, yet, have the books – feel free to correct this misconception and or provide examples.

 

[theNater]

Most of the points I wanted to make on my first read-through have already been made by others. However, I did want to address one point.

7. Endless magical at-will attacks, should a wizard be able to magic missile all day?

Yes! Yes! In the name of all that is holy, yes! Sing the praises of the creators of 4th edition, they have saved us from the tyranny of limited magic missiles!

 

[Mort_Q]

7. Endless magical at-will attacks, should a wizard be able to magic missile all day?

The only way that could be a bad thing would be if they left it as an automatic hit.... which they didn't.

This, as has been said, is a good thing. Rejoice!!!!

 

[helium3]

Hi Sadrik. How many hours have you played 4e? Just a ball-park figure, if you will.

Thanks

Can't speak for Sadrik, but I estimate I've spent:

6 hours reading the books (read the DMG from start to finish. 1st time ever for me)
10 hours designing 5 10th level pregen characters
6 hours designing an adventure for said characters
4 hours DM'ing the first two encounters of said adventure
4 hours playing Keep on the Shadowfell and probably another 6 to 8 reading the core books

Good

1. The evening out of the BAB and level bonuses (agreed)
2. Streamlining of the skill system (agree. totally in love with passive checks and pg. of the DMG)
3. Saves as Defenses (yep)
4. Streamlining all powers from all character types into one system (no endless class based sub-systems) (in general yes)
5. XP system, including no losing XP (no, it's the streamlining of encounter design.)
6. Monsters, how they are different than PC's, the endless variety of each type (i think they could have done this better. Chapter 0 of the DMG is my favorite chapter, though.)
7. Ritual system for out of combat spells and magic item creation (I LOVE the concept of rituals but this part of the new design is hands-down the WEAKEST part, in my opinion. I cannot stress enough how disappointed I am. It's bland, it's limited and there are ZERO rules in the DMG on how to make new rituals. I can understand why there's no verbiage on creating new races, classes and powers but nothing on how to make new Rituals?)
8. PoL setting (Neutral on this one. Right now I'm cautiously optimistic.)
9. Actions (Standard, Move, Minor) (Love this too.)

bad

1. Stat polarity- tough or strong, smart or quick, perceptive or social (i've never heard of this before. why is it a problem?)
2. A clear focus on STR, CON, DEX (feats, what each stat does in general) (Are you basing this off the number of physical stat dependent powers to mental stat dependent powers? In the end, I hunch 4E will have far more mental stat dependent powers than physical stats.)
3. Weapons- sizing for small creatures, damages for various weapons, weapon uniqueness (I still don't understand the sizing rules. it's the only part of the PHB that my eyes started to glaze over on while I was reading. Still, I like that they've stopped pretending that D&D weapons and armor should model real world weapons to any serious degree.)
4. Streamlining all powers from all character types into one system (no excellent unique sub-systems) (Yeah, I get you mean. There's not event he option of having a really good subsystem. Well, that's not entirely true. I've already thought of several. What remains to be seen is whether or not WotC "goes there.")
5. Class imbalance (Ranger) (The ranger class is unbalanced? I haven't even looked at it yet.)
6. Non-Weapon attacks missing a "weapon training" bonus to hit (there are a fair number of weapon vs. defense powers. there are significantly (I know of two and both are Cleric Powers) less implement vs. AC powers. Is this enough to warrant this criticism? I'm not convinced but I've seen enough to consider it the possibility it's true.)
7. Endless magical at-will attacks, should a wizard be able to magic missile all day? (Meh. I have zero problems with this. I've always hated this part of the old magic system.)

 

[kennew142]

A wizard can no more throw a magic missile every six seconds than a fighter can swing his sword every six seconds. Atttempting either action would bring on fatigue. D&D doesn't have rules for fatigue (thank FSM), so this issue needs to be solved by every table in the way that is best for them. Fatigue is pretty much just RP in D&D. Unless you want to add such a system for melee combat, there is no reason to assume that wizards can't do the thing they're trained in (casting spells) with the same frequency a fighter can do what he's trained in (swinging a weapon).

The introduction of at-will spells is (IMNSHO) the single best design element of the new edition. I've been predicting it since the warlock was first introduced in 3e, and I'm so glad the deisigners haven't disappointed me.

 

[Cadfan]

I have had the lucky opportunity to build several characters recently and it was very apparent in the decision making process as to how you would assign your stats to the character. Stat polarity is pretty rough and a big pill to swallow and always on your mind when designing a character.

Player: "I want to make a smart fighter who will go into being a wizard with ritual casting and stuff but my stats are all screwed up."
DM: "Have you seen the warlord?"
Player: "Yeah but I don't want to do that stuff. I want to blast heads with my greatsword and make these challenges."
DM: "Well then, you will have to have screwed up stats."

But that's not stat polarity. That's intentionally rejecting the smart fighter class in favor of the wise fighter class, then complaining that it isn't the smart fighter class. Screw that guy, he's making his own problems.

As a general rule, I've had a tough time figuring out how to assign stats to the characters I've built. This is because I have choices. There are lots of things I could do with the characters, and each route requires different stat allocations. The fact that I can't get everything I want by just huge tossing numbers around is a feature.

 

[Regicide]

The introduction of at-will spells is (IMNSHO) the single best design element of the new edition. I've been predicting it since the warlock was first introduced in 3e, and I'm so glad the deisigners haven't disappointed me.

3E had at-will spells. They were called wands.