THINGS I HATE:
Weapon damage die - 4e should have dumped weapon damage when they moved to a powers system. Generally any weapon that was used for war in the high middle ages was designed to be lethal based on the tactics, training and equipment of your opponents. Even in cases where some weapons are clearly more lethal than others, it doesn't jive with the cinematic flavour of the powers. If I want a rogue with a dagger to kill a paladin in plate anyway, powers are a much better way of describing how it would happen than damage die rolls. All damage rolls do is ensure that the rogue uses a short sword rather than a dagger, even when the more easily concealed dagger would be just as lethal and make more sense.
The House Rule: Damage is decided by power and by role, like spells or prayers. Where appropriate powers that currently have the weapon type will be assigned to various weapon types. This already occurs with the rogue's powers that require light blades, or the barbarian's weapons which require two-handed weapons. Will probably give fighters a "fighting style" mechanic similar to the wizard's implement mastery that gives them a special benefit once per encounter.
Implements - I love the implement mastery feature of the wizard which creates differing wizard schools. I hate implements themselves for a few reasons. First implements have no reason to be restricted for use by one class or another. Why can't wizards use rods? A warlock might use his pact dagger for sacrifices, but what does a sorcerer use it instead of a wand? It just seems unecessary. The second problem with implements is that they are largely the same item spread over multiple forms. Aside from more warlock powers in rods and more wizard powers in staves, what really is the difference between the two mechanically?
The House Rule: All characters, even martial characters, can use any implement. It allows for a free power that the character wouldn't normally have access to (essentially giving away a free multiclass and power feat as an encounter or daily power) but I don't forsee it as being a huge power creep, though it will be a slight one. In the future, I want to organize powers based on certain implements, as I'm doing with weapons.
Encounter building as per the DMG - The chapter on building encounters in the DMG is just wrong, as was the advice that every combat needs to be a skirmish battle. 4e works so well as an exploratory game with healing surges and encounter powers that not availing yourself to many minor interesting encounters that may not challenge the party as much as a full battle, but can serve to transition through scenes and advance the plot faster. They also still burn off resources, and gives the sense that the party is being ground down by their encounters, without making them feel like they should rest after 1 or 2 encounters. Random encounters in 4e work very well with this design philosophy, where you get a sense of traveling through your surroundings by killing the local inhabitants and creatures. The guy that wrote the chapter on encounters in the DMG that pretty much insisted that every fight be a grindfest should wear a sign during Gen-Con that says "I was wrong, I'm sorry."
Monsters have too many hp/defenses - Game designers are generally game designers because they are arch-geeks. They seem to love a) character optimization and b) enjoy watching the various powers and monster abilities interacting with each other. I imagine that the game designers must either get through their combats faster because they are better at a) than I am, or they don't mind the long combats because of b). For me though, combat is something I do on the way to conquering the dungeon or advancing a plot point, rather than the plot and dungeon being a framing device for combat. I would like to spend about 5-30 minutes on a combat and move on, with perhaps one combat a night that is longer.
The House Rule: I have no real original insights here. The monsters simply have to have some defenses shaved by 2 or 3 points, and some hitpoints reduced by as much as half. Since I'm changing the stat block anyway, I've started randomizing hp to give minor characters a little more surprise and personality in regards to their toughness. Monsters with a gimmick I like, or who are plot-worthy keep their full complement of defenses and hp (except for solos from MM1, who will lose 20% hp).
Skill Challenges - I know this is among the most popular mechanic that gets approval from even those who hate 4e, but I've come to the conclusion that X successes before Y failures is a dog of a mechanic. It forces an artificial narrative of the DM responding to PC's die rolls, and it often lengthens a simple pass/fail scenario needlessly.
The House Rule: Skill Challenges in my game are not a shared challenge among the PC. Instead they are methodology of setting a scene to ensure that several skills are applicable. The skill checks still go around the table, and the complications of each failure and the benefits of each success are still shared by the group, but they are largely doing different tasks rather than cooperating on the same single task.
Having to give up established powers as you go up in level - I hate the fact that if a pick up a power in the heroic tier that suits my character concept, I have to trade it in at a higher level to another power that doesn't fit my character concept as well.
The House Rule: You keep your lower level power. I am toying with making kept low level daily powers become encounter powers. I can't convert encounter powers to at wills like I'd like to (the damage doesn't scale fast enough) but low level dailies are just slightly better than the highest level encounter powers that the character would have in terms of damage. Both these changes would increase the damage output of a character slightly, but as we've established, monsters have too many hp anyway.
Magical items - I started a whole thread about this.
THINGS I LOVE:
Monsters as Gimmicks - I love that each monster plays differently at the table, like they did in editions before 3e. I loved the strong rules to design a monster based on creature type (giant, undead, etc) and character class in 3e, but in the end the type and class matter much more than the individual instances of the monster. 4e I think, struck the right balance between 1e/2e's free for all and 3e's restricting template. Even if I was to play 3e again, it would have to be with a 4e Monster Manual.
Martial Powers - When people say they don't like that martial characters having powers in 4e, or that the powers system makes all classes seem to similar, I think to myself rather cynically that those must be the type of guy that always played wizards. I always played rogues and paladins, and I love, love, love, the fact that each has unique fighting styles and tricks based on the powers they select.
Epic Destinies - I don't know if every campaign I run or play in will always go to the epic levels. I do however, love the idea that someday my character could be a Fey King, an Archmage, a demi-god or some other immortal part of the campaign world I'm playing in.
Powers - I like that 4e is very much made up of isolated component parts (powers in particular), and each of its parts is relatively different. I don't really get the "classes all play the same vibe" that others have mentioned, given that both the ranger and the thief play much differently than their cousin the fighter in 4e, than they had in previous editions. When Bards were introduced, they play like something brand new, not like a cobbled together sorcerer/thief. The downside of this of course is the fact that you can't play any character you can imagine until there are rules designed to specifically deal with it. It is a trade I'm willing to make though, to get specially designed rules.
THINGS I WANT:
D&D 4e Junior or D&D 4e Storyteller - A version of 4e that I can play in the with my little girl when she's 8 years old in the backseat of a sedan during a long car trip. While I love the fact that 4e has highly specialized rules, uses minis extensively, and has all sorts of neat and intricate powers to use during combat, I want its inverse as well. I want a simple, general, mini-less version of D&D with less math that emphasizes character interaction over combative skirmishing.
I've been scrounging around looking for alternate systems, old editions, and retroclones. The alternate systems however, just aren't D&D. The old editions and retroclones certainly have the feel of D&D, but I while I love old school storylines and settings, I HATE old school unbalanced or arbitrary mechanics (and most aren't as simple as I'd like anyway) So a one-off book geared towards my kids instead of me, that you could pick up for 25 dollars with no further investment, that has a ruleset capable of containing a full campaign is something I desire.
Fan made "Best of" lists for magical items - I would like a group of people to pick out the best 5 magical items per level, based on how exciting or fun they are to use in play (not necessarily the most powerful) and list them on a website somewhere.
Powers organized into Spheres or Schools - Powers can seem like a bit of a grab bag sometimes, and certain classes deal with that grab bag better than others. Wizards certainly fit that mold with their book of spells, as do rogues with their bag of tricks. More specialized classes like the paladin or ranger already have class abilities that largely follow the same theme. The one that struggles the most with the grab bag nature of powers that don't necessarily work together is the fighter.
A fighter suffers from this problem because he is a general martial combatant, while the other martial classes are generally grouped around one weapon type. Barbarian abilities work together because you are assumed to be using a two handed weapon. Rogue abilities work together because it is assumed you are using a light blade. Ranger abilities work together because you are assumed to have a bow or two swords. Fighter abilities though generally have to fit a wide variety of weapons, so their abilities feel the most random. Organizing the powers into schools and particular weapons would give guidance on how to build a consistent character, and fill in the gaps where the powers don't fit a particular archetype. The player would be allowed to deviate from this school if he wanted another power as he wished, but it would reduce the gut feeling of randomness.
