What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?

[Felon]

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.

Preach it.

In 4e, it's almsot to the point where ability scores are obsolete. If class is going to dictate how you assign ability scores, forcing you to need one ability scores to be the highest, and others high but not quite so high, and anything that's left over you simply don't need at all--well, then what was the point of allowing players to move the numbers around in the first place?

What 4e does too much is use variables to determine the effectiveness of powers. The [W] variable is the worst case, but nearly as bad is using ability scores as power variables. It's one of the things that turned me off of Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes. The problem is that with many powers, if the variable deviates too much from the value that the guy who designed the power expected, things go out of whack quickly. For instance, a wizard's orb implement mastery class feature allows him to force a saving throw penalty onto a target. The penalty is equal to his Wis modifier, which the designers probably thought would stay around -2 or -3. One exploitable character design that gets paraded around RPGNet is the "orbizard"--a wizard whose utmost concern is abusing orb implement mastery to apply such a stiff penalty to saves that a monster is essentially "savelocked" with a penalty of -10 or greater. That starts out by trying to puff up Wisdom any way you can, by race or just by promoting it higher than Int.

Supposedly, using ability scores as variables is supposed to reward a character for assigning a good number to that ability. However, if it's the same ability used constantly for every power, as it is with most classes, then the intent has been defeated, because the fix is in before the player even got around to making any choices. It's a fait accompli.

It's a really a shame they couldn't find a niche for Intelligence. Tieflings and gnomes are supposed to be natural rogues, but their Int bonus really doesn't do them a bit of good.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As a quick reply, there are probably as many things that I like about 4e as there are things that I dislike, but the things that I dislike loom large enough to greatly damage my enjoyment of the game. I find myself in the same position with Pathfinder.

Pretty much QFT. I respect some things about 4Ed, but I don't like it as D&D...and what I've seen of Pathfinder seems a bit turbocharged.

As I said in this similar thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/251413-what-would-you-have-had-them-do.html

I would have preferred a 4Ed more similar to 3.5 than what we got- one that really cleaned up the more confusing language and cleaned up bad mechanics (polymorph, anyone?).

 

[Lurks-no-More]

What I wanted was what I got: an improvement over 3e. What I expected was something more along the lines of SWSE, but I'm happy with 4e.

 

[Greg K]

It's one of the things that turned me off of Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes.

I really liked Book of Iron Might and a couple of other things that I had seen of his work. So, I thought Mike going to WOTC would be a good thing. However, I have found both Iron Heroes and 4e to be disappointing. It's just with the latter, I don't know which individuals were responsible for the material that I like and don't like. It makes me wish that the people responsible for individual mechanics, classes, etc were identified.

 

[Mallus]

Yes, because the reality was that your 3E campaign was never going to see a Pun-Pun...

But it will probably see clerics or druids. That's enough.

 

[Greg K]

But it will probably see clerics or druids. That's enough.

By RAW, yes.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I would've liked 4e to be kinda like C&C. I wouldn't have bought the core rules, but I'd be more likely to pick up support materials like adventures and such, since they'd be much closer to the TSR-era D&D that I prefer and run. And I would have had more "common ground" with 4e players.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Yes, because the reality was that your 3E campaign was never going to see a Pun-Pun...

But it will probably see clerics or druids. That's enough.

I still haven't seen a CoDzilla in any 3E game I've played or run. I guess I'm just lucky.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I still haven't seen a CoDzilla in any 3E game I've played or run. I guess I'm just lucky.

You and me both.

 

[Greg K]

You and me both.

Or I. I just houserule the classes to fit the style of campaigns I want to run and their role in the campaign. That the houserules nips Codzilla in the bud is a benefit..