D&D 4E Turns out my DM cannot into 4e.

[Obryn]

I agree, and I'm glad that they have mostly fixed this in the latest stuff. I honestly would not mind a revised and updated reprint of PHB1 and MM1 that had these fixes. Then again, Monster Vault has the fixes so I don't think it's absolutely necessary, but I wouldn't mind it.

Now that the game is really firing on all cylinders, a newly redesigned DMG1 with ALL the fixes, much better advice based on the current experience level with the game, written by Perkins, Laws and Schwalb, would be ideal. I'm not holding my breath, but I can wish.

Honestly, the PHB is just fine. Some errata, yes, but only Monster Manual I has been totally deprecated and replaced by something newer. It needed it the most, so...

But yes. I always tell folks - I can't blame them for bailing on 4e when it was still rocky, because it wasn't ready to be released when first published. But the game now? Way, way better than it was in 2008, and not just because there's more stuff for it. That errata process was annoying, but it has had a profoundly positive effect on the system.

-O

 

[D'karr]

That errata process was annoying, but it has had a profoundly positive effect on the system.

-O

I didn't find the errata so annoying because I was used to it from the 3.x days, and I was using the electronic tools. But I can understand the "mill" effect where it seemed like things never finished getting solved. However, the results were significant. A lot of things work much better now because of it.

I would have really liked to see either a DMG3 or Unearthed Arcana with Epic Support, even to the point of including an alternate system for Epic. I would also have gone into more details on the "design background" of things. When a DM understands why something was designed in a particular way, he has a better chance of redesigning it to his taste. 4e provides a very solid design framework, and I've tweaked so many things to taste. Understanding the baseline cannot be overstated.

Wishful thinking at this point, but man I'd be all for that.

 

[sabrinathecat]

WotC had horrible editing problems. And some of the mistakes were so glaring. Then there's the fact that whoever was in charge of print choices didn't know enough about paper & ink combinations to give the books enough time to dry before putting them on the market.
Silly me: I'm from the "Do it right the First time" school, rather than the "Patch it as we go" school.

As for Solos, our DM has a pretty good system: any elite or solo that has the required stats has Superior Will feat. And the damage dice of any monster should be comparable to the PCs. (Epic monsters should not have 1d8+5 attacks--change to 2d8 base, 3d8 for solos unless it's an area attack--and sometimes even then).

 

[Jester David]

Upon scanning the Monster Manual, I realized the DM had put a party full of level 2 characters against an encounter that included a level 7 soldier. Bloodweb spider swarm or something, and it had a +10 vs. Reflex attack.

We're level 2. The highest Reflex in the party is around 15. I'm sure the encounter was within the XP guidelines, but there's no way we can fight a monster with a +5 bonus to its attacks and defenses.

I suppose my complaints with the system can be dismissed until I actually play the system properly.

More than any other edition, 4e changes how encounters are meant to be designed.

Each level a monster is above the party reduces the PC's hit rate by 5% and increases the monster's by the same. Mixed roles are helpful and designing by the book is a handy tool.
Certain types of fight just don't work as well and budgets can be restrictive.

it's like learning to DM all over again.

 

[MarkB]

As for Solos, our DM has a pretty good system: any elite or solo that has the required stats has Superior Will feat.

That's reasonable, given that it's my experience that every PC who has the required stats acquires it as early as possible.