Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
Aren't they mostly the same thing, such that if 3.5 was rules-heavy 3e was rules-heavy too?
What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?
- Thread starter Hexmage-EN
- Start date
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I was hoping that 4e would be very much like Saga, but with additional refinement.
In particular, I was really, really hoping that we would see classes with class talent trees as a means of configuring base classes to make them quite different (depending upon what you want to be).
The only thing I really dislike about 4e is the class powers - the way that everyone has become a "caster", that there are powers that don't seem to make sense and you just have to accept them, the fact that most members of a class end up looking very similar because there are only so many 'good' powers to choose, and most of all because of the intricately fiddly nature of things that they bring to combat.
I was tired and annoyed by the multiple overlapping bonuses in 3e, but I'm even more tired and annoyed by the multiple overlapping conditions in 4e. OK, the fighter has marked these 3 guys with his close burst attack, that one was marked by the paladin but his mark is overridden - oh, OK the fighter doesn't mark him. This guy is weakened, save ends; those two guys have ongoing 5 fire and this guy also has ongoing 5 acid. The warlock is invisible to this guy until the beginning of the warlocks next turn, but has concealment from everyone until the end of his next turn... and so on.
I wanted simpler combat - options at the point of attack, sure; but not the tracking of minutae which prevail across so much of 4e.
There are quite a few things in 4e I do like, it is just a shame that the two things I really don't like are, uh, rather central to it!
So I'm sorry that more wasn't taken from the goodness which is SWSE.
Cheers
In particular, I was really, really hoping that we would see classes with class talent trees as a means of configuring base classes to make them quite different (depending upon what you want to be).
The only thing I really dislike about 4e is the class powers - the way that everyone has become a "caster", that there are powers that don't seem to make sense and you just have to accept them, the fact that most members of a class end up looking very similar because there are only so many 'good' powers to choose, and most of all because of the intricately fiddly nature of things that they bring to combat.
I was tired and annoyed by the multiple overlapping bonuses in 3e, but I'm even more tired and annoyed by the multiple overlapping conditions in 4e. OK, the fighter has marked these 3 guys with his close burst attack, that one was marked by the paladin but his mark is overridden - oh, OK the fighter doesn't mark him. This guy is weakened, save ends; those two guys have ongoing 5 fire and this guy also has ongoing 5 acid. The warlock is invisible to this guy until the beginning of the warlocks next turn, but has concealment from everyone until the end of his next turn... and so on.
I wanted simpler combat - options at the point of attack, sure; but not the tracking of minutae which prevail across so much of 4e.
There are quite a few things in 4e I do like, it is just a shame that the two things I really don't like are, uh, rather central to it!
So I'm sorry that more wasn't taken from the goodness which is SWSE.
Cheers
jmucchiello
Hero
I've yet to play 4e but that doesn't affect my answer. What I wanted from 4e was another 2-3 years of 3.5e. 4e came out too soon after the 3.5e release IMO. 2011 was when 4e should have come out.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
I wanted a 4e that resembled the previews WotC put out. It might have been naivety on my part, but when the designers and developers of the game started talking about action points, milestones, and powers that lasted for the length of an encounter I envisioned a sort of unpretentious narrative focused game that melded together with the tactical game play and violent adventure story themes I enjoy. When the preview with the feats that allowed expanded uses for action points I jumped with joy - I was happy that WotC had embraced the use of in game resources to allow players to dramatically alter the game world. I'm disappointed that they later changed their minds.
My other major disappointment with 4e was how sparse the monster and world fluff became and the form it ended up taking. During the previews for 4e I was excited about the ways in which they were reimagining the default setting - I ate up the material in Worlds and Monsters, and I was excited about the fact that they had a team of designers working on the game's story elements. I wanted expansive story material that focused on thematic and setting elements that come about in actual play.
So what went wrong? To a certain extent I imagined that WotC tastes matched my own more than they did because the issues they wanted to address were some of my own personal bugaboos with 3e. There's also the internet factor and goram RPGA to consider. The amount of overreaction to the more narrativist elements and new setting material probably provoked WotC to cut a good deal of content they wanted to include - in fact, at least in the case of Wizard traditions there are several artifacts of cut material. I'll also say this now - I think WotC gave too much credence to RPGA playtesters when it came to stuff like milestones, not having exact duration information, skill challenges and other elements that came out in a more gamist form than the previews suggested.
Still, I'm really happy with the game that I got in 4e. It removed a lot of the cruft that I felt was getting in the way of a version of D&D that I enjoy running as much as I enjoy playing. Martial characters no longer feel like second class citizens. Magic is less earth shaking, but still potent. The skill system allows me to focus on character creation at a more conceptual level. When you layer on additional shared narrative mechanics onto the game it feels less disjointed than it does with 3e. I like that away from the table activities don't have a greater impact than decisions made during gameplay.
My other major disappointment with 4e was how sparse the monster and world fluff became and the form it ended up taking. During the previews for 4e I was excited about the ways in which they were reimagining the default setting - I ate up the material in Worlds and Monsters, and I was excited about the fact that they had a team of designers working on the game's story elements. I wanted expansive story material that focused on thematic and setting elements that come about in actual play.
So what went wrong? To a certain extent I imagined that WotC tastes matched my own more than they did because the issues they wanted to address were some of my own personal bugaboos with 3e. There's also the internet factor and goram RPGA to consider. The amount of overreaction to the more narrativist elements and new setting material probably provoked WotC to cut a good deal of content they wanted to include - in fact, at least in the case of Wizard traditions there are several artifacts of cut material. I'll also say this now - I think WotC gave too much credence to RPGA playtesters when it came to stuff like milestones, not having exact duration information, skill challenges and other elements that came out in a more gamist form than the previews suggested.
Still, I'm really happy with the game that I got in 4e. It removed a lot of the cruft that I felt was getting in the way of a version of D&D that I enjoy running as much as I enjoy playing. Martial characters no longer feel like second class citizens. Magic is less earth shaking, but still potent. The skill system allows me to focus on character creation at a more conceptual level. When you layer on additional shared narrative mechanics onto the game it feels less disjointed than it does with 3e. I like that away from the table activities don't have a greater impact than decisions made during gameplay.
Lord Mhoram
Hero
After having played and GMed 3.x for years (and quitting doing so a few years before 4th came out) - I wanted 4th to be much more streamlined in the ability to GM, and have a lot less fluff. 3.x was way to fluff heavy for me. I wanted something you could 'reskin/refluff"
Part of that is that I play Hero for my primary game - and that is a game where the fluff is effectively invented by the player and GM when they build characters and worlds.
I got that in spades.
A lot of it came in a realization in what I was looking for in my secondary game; my primary game was a crunch heavy, simulationist (if you will pardon threefold terminology here), and amazingly flexible - there has never been anything that I haven't been able to play.
But there are times I wanted something different - 3.x was actually too close to Hero in all the reasons I liked it, and it had the difficulty in GMing at mid/high levels. So 4E, with it's gamist emphasis, less ties between mechanics and world building and less fluff is perfect for me.
Part of that is that I play Hero for my primary game - and that is a game where the fluff is effectively invented by the player and GM when they build characters and worlds.
I got that in spades.
A lot of it came in a realization in what I was looking for in my secondary game; my primary game was a crunch heavy, simulationist (if you will pardon threefold terminology here), and amazingly flexible - there has never been anything that I haven't been able to play.
But there are times I wanted something different - 3.x was actually too close to Hero in all the reasons I liked it, and it had the difficulty in GMing at mid/high levels. So 4E, with it's gamist emphasis, less ties between mechanics and world building and less fluff is perfect for me.
What I wanted was 3e drawing changes from Unearthed Arcana, d20 Modern, Star Wars Saga (for condition tracks, saves as defenses, talent trees for prcs), Sean K Reynolds's Fewer Absolutes, Book of Iron Might (for maneuvers), Artificer's Handbook (for Magic Item Creation), and a couple of other third party sources
1. Setting specifics and racial names moved to an appendix as a sample campaign and example of campaign building
2. Less gamist than 4e and more concern for verisimitude
3. Fewer Absolutes as per Sean K Reynolds article
4. Removal of Level Drain
5. Removal of XP to cast certain spells
6. Removal of XP to create magic items. Change the magic item creation rules to something like the Artificer's Handbook (Mystic Eye Games)
7. Unified Save Progression (similar to 4e unified defense progression) with characters receiving a good save bonus (or bonuses) only from the initial class.
8. Spellcasters toned down
9. Nonbiological racial abilities (e.g, bonuses against giant, weapon proficiencies) as feats
10. More starting hit points (I like what 4e did)
11. More skill points per level for the 2+int per level classes
12. Multiclassing
- Characters cannot receive armor and weapon proficiencies from multiclassing except through class bonus feats.
- No class save bonuses from multiclassing
13. Book of Iron Might type maneuvers and a system for creating new maneuvers. The Book of Iron Might is why the news of Mearls joining WOTC made me happy. I thought he would introduce a similar system.
14. From Unearthed Arcana made core:
- Spontaneous Divine Casting
- Specialist Wizard variant abilities
- Action Points but working more like M&M hero points for modifying d20 rolls.
- Weapon Groups
- Death and Dying and removal of negative hit points
- Complex Skill Checks
- Incantations
- Turn Undead variant
- either
a) the generic classes + 3 additional hybrids (warrior adept (Warrior and Adept), physical adept (Adept and Expert), and a class that combines warrior and expert));or
b) if keeping the existing classes, providing several UA Style class variants (i.e., barbarian hunter, cloistered cleric, monk fighting styles, urban ranger, wilderness rogue, martial rogue, and battle sorcerer), plus the Complete Champion spelless paladin and ranger variants used as examples of tailoring classes.
15. From d20 Modern
- Occupations
- Talent Trees for Classes and Prestige Classes
- Class based Defense
- Brawl, Combat MA, and Defensive MA Trees
16. Star Wars: Saga Edition
- Condition track
- Saves as Defenses
- Talent Trees for Prestige Classes
17. Animal Companions handled as feats as per the Animal Cohort feat from the website.
18. Spells
a. levels of spells reexamined
b. some spells reworked (e.g, making magic missile a ranged touch attack or changing skill duplicating spells to give a bonus to a skill check or require a caster check)
c. making some spells UA Incantations (e.g., raise dead, speak with dead, scrying, long range teleports)
d. removing some spells (e.g, rope trick)
19. Spycraft or Adamant Foe Factory:Modern quick NPC creation system.
1. Setting specifics and racial names moved to an appendix as a sample campaign and example of campaign building
2. Less gamist than 4e and more concern for verisimitude
3. Fewer Absolutes as per Sean K Reynolds article
4. Removal of Level Drain
5. Removal of XP to cast certain spells
6. Removal of XP to create magic items. Change the magic item creation rules to something like the Artificer's Handbook (Mystic Eye Games)
7. Unified Save Progression (similar to 4e unified defense progression) with characters receiving a good save bonus (or bonuses) only from the initial class.
8. Spellcasters toned down
9. Nonbiological racial abilities (e.g, bonuses against giant, weapon proficiencies) as feats
10. More starting hit points (I like what 4e did)
11. More skill points per level for the 2+int per level classes
12. Multiclassing
- Characters cannot receive armor and weapon proficiencies from multiclassing except through class bonus feats.
- No class save bonuses from multiclassing
13. Book of Iron Might type maneuvers and a system for creating new maneuvers. The Book of Iron Might is why the news of Mearls joining WOTC made me happy. I thought he would introduce a similar system.
14. From Unearthed Arcana made core:
- Spontaneous Divine Casting
- Specialist Wizard variant abilities
- Action Points but working more like M&M hero points for modifying d20 rolls.
- Weapon Groups
- Death and Dying and removal of negative hit points
- Complex Skill Checks
- Incantations
- Turn Undead variant
- either
a) the generic classes + 3 additional hybrids (warrior adept (Warrior and Adept), physical adept (Adept and Expert), and a class that combines warrior and expert));or
b) if keeping the existing classes, providing several UA Style class variants (i.e., barbarian hunter, cloistered cleric, monk fighting styles, urban ranger, wilderness rogue, martial rogue, and battle sorcerer), plus the Complete Champion spelless paladin and ranger variants used as examples of tailoring classes.
15. From d20 Modern
- Occupations
- Talent Trees for Classes and Prestige Classes
- Class based Defense
- Brawl, Combat MA, and Defensive MA Trees
16. Star Wars: Saga Edition
- Condition track
- Saves as Defenses
- Talent Trees for Prestige Classes
17. Animal Companions handled as feats as per the Animal Cohort feat from the website.
18. Spells
a. levels of spells reexamined
b. some spells reworked (e.g, making magic missile a ranged touch attack or changing skill duplicating spells to give a bonus to a skill check or require a caster check)
c. making some spells UA Incantations (e.g., raise dead, speak with dead, scrying, long range teleports)
d. removing some spells (e.g, rope trick)
19. Spycraft or Adamant Foe Factory:Modern quick NPC creation system.
Last edited:
Slife
First Post
3rd edition but balanced. That is:
Something like the warblade as the new fighter class. Book of Nine Swords was excellent, balance wise and smooth mechanics wise.
Differentiated class abilities and playstyles, with classes on both ends of the "resource management" spectrum. I like being able to have both warlocks and wizards.
Revised grappling that isn't a pain.
A nerf to the combat applications of magic, and the knock-like "your rogues are pointless here" spells. That is, no one-round save-or-lose spells. Creeping petrification that starts by slowing you down before turning you into a statue, something like that. Illusions actually being available. No silly spells like celerity or polymorph or disjunction.
Everything using the same system. I like it (both as a player and a GM) that npcs and monsters use the same building blocks.
I've looked through Pathfinder, and it doesn't really meet what I want at all. After reading through the pdfs, I got the impression that they're in editorial deadlock - a lot of the changes being made seem like personal houserules that are allowed by the others because they have their own personal houserules to push. The balance is actually being made worse, rather than better, and the most obvious abuses of the rules (candles of invocation, f'rexample) don't seem to be handled at all.
Something like the warblade as the new fighter class. Book of Nine Swords was excellent, balance wise and smooth mechanics wise.
Differentiated class abilities and playstyles, with classes on both ends of the "resource management" spectrum. I like being able to have both warlocks and wizards.
Revised grappling that isn't a pain.
A nerf to the combat applications of magic, and the knock-like "your rogues are pointless here" spells. That is, no one-round save-or-lose spells. Creeping petrification that starts by slowing you down before turning you into a statue, something like that. Illusions actually being available. No silly spells like celerity or polymorph or disjunction.
Everything using the same system. I like it (both as a player and a GM) that npcs and monsters use the same building blocks.
I've looked through Pathfinder, and it doesn't really meet what I want at all. After reading through the pdfs, I got the impression that they're in editorial deadlock - a lot of the changes being made seem like personal houserules that are allowed by the others because they have their own personal houserules to push. The balance is actually being made worse, rather than better, and the most obvious abuses of the rules (candles of invocation, f'rexample) don't seem to be handled at all.
We had so many indicators of a fine system D&D was moving towards. The 3.5 PHB2, Magic Item Compendium, and Monster Manual V all gave us a glimpse of a wonderful system to come. I wasn't a fan of The Book of Nine Swords because the classes seemed very over-the-top at the time, but it also had some elements with promise.
And then we got 4e, which is ultimately just a total cop-out. The designers seem to take pride in saying over and over again "we were trying to devise these elegant, intricate systems, and then we finally decided screw it, let's go with the easiest thing we can do, and tell folks they just need to get over the wonky bits".
So now we have things like the crappy coin-toss saving throws that turn spells like sleep into a joke. We have characters arraying their ability scores in cookie-cutter formation, because we're told up front which ability scores matter and which don't. Almost every character that uses weapon-based powers has a superior weapon, so martial weapons may as well not exist. And anyone who doesn't have weapon-based powers just have to live with getting the short end of the stick on DPS.
Ultimately, we have a system that has just as many shortcomings as 3e, just as many exploitable areas as 3e, just as much junk to keep track of in combat, and to boot players have fewer options to build interesting characters.
And then we got 4e, which is ultimately just a total cop-out. The designers seem to take pride in saying over and over again "we were trying to devise these elegant, intricate systems, and then we finally decided screw it, let's go with the easiest thing we can do, and tell folks they just need to get over the wonky bits".
So now we have things like the crappy coin-toss saving throws that turn spells like sleep into a joke. We have characters arraying their ability scores in cookie-cutter formation, because we're told up front which ability scores matter and which don't. Almost every character that uses weapon-based powers has a superior weapon, so martial weapons may as well not exist. And anyone who doesn't have weapon-based powers just have to live with getting the short end of the stick on DPS.
Ultimately, we have a system that has just as many shortcomings as 3e, just as many exploitable areas as 3e, just as much junk to keep track of in combat, and to boot players have fewer options to build interesting characters.
And examples of some of these would be?
Similar Threads
