D&D 4E What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?

[catastrophic]

I've been away from the game for awhle but will be starting up a new 4th edition campaign tonight with a few close friends. Naturally I've been browsing a number of forums and new products to get a feel for what's new since I left. (Right before Essentials was released IIRC)

Stop right there.

Don't waste your time with the hate. It's a good system and most of the people hating on it are just bearing a grudge. The majority of people hating on 4e don't understand it, and don't want to.

There's some legit criticisms around on issues like the grind and skill challenges still being bleargh, and good luck finding a workable monster builder program, or a decent module or advanture path. Most of the posts above have a good summary of real issues. But if your group is into 4e, just forget the internet drama and play the damn game.

To be frank, converting pathfinder adventures is not as hard as it looks, because building monsters and encounters in 4e is a lot easier than the alternative.

 

[Herschel]

Stop right there.

Don't waste your time with the hate. It's a good system and most of the people hating on it are just bearing a grudge. The majority of people hating on 4e don't understand it, and don't want to.
...
To be frank, converting pathfinder adventures is not as hard as it looks, because building monsters and encounters in 4e is a lot easier than the alternative.

Must spread XP but this is right on the head.

Three things 4E did that were good systemically but turned some people off:

1. Thumbed its nose at minutia monkeys outside of combat. It originally lessened it in combat but that's really not the case any more.

2. Tried to focus more on the party instead of individual characters. They tried to get away from the "I win" spellchuckers and make it so every player/class would have fun at the table. This means a greater focus on tactics instead of spell lists. It means a boon to those who can think on their feet vs. pre-planning eveything.

3. It not only shut some sacred cows out of the temple, it took 'em out back, shot 'em and asked if you want fries with that. Old school healing, for example, is toast. It's more cinematic now and quite frankly works a whole heck of a lot better, in no small part because there are multiple classes that can fulfill that role now.

Where 4E really missed was in its presentation of some things.

Skill challenges are great, so long as you don't announce them or make it clear the party is in one. The way they were presented makes it seem like you would run it encapsulated like a combat encounter, which sucks. A lot. They're great when the party doesn't realize they'r ein one for teh first couple of rolls.

The PH1 read too much like a technical manual. I understand why they did, it's still a rather hefty book, but the intro section was fairly short and for established games who may initially skip the "what is D&D" section it really was a bit dry to read.

Quick battles against mooks. Minions werre a GREAT addition, and the ability to skill check by some mooks was too. However, the way encounter design was presented it didn't outline any battle against just mooks. So it seems like every battle is meatier and if you follow more directly what was written, could be longer.

 

[Quickleaf]

Continuing the constructive criticism from active 4e gamers who do understand the system, enjoy it for what it is, and have good ideas about improving it...

I feel the disconnect between narrative and mechanics was a missed opportunity. What exactly is happening when a paladin's mark takes radiant damage for attacking someone else? Why are some powers limited to daily use for martial types? Arcane types? How can a fighter using Come and Get It provoke a creature of animal intelligence into coming closer? When a cleric is invested with divine power what does that rite entail and why is it irreversible?

As a corollary I noticed the strictly defined powers seemed to restrict the creative spontaneity of players at my table, my friend's table, and D&D Encounters. To a certain extent this is a player type thing, but there could be better guidance for improvising effects or more extensive examples of terrain powers (and these should be slightly more attractive than class powers IMO).

I've really tweaked the system to get fights that don't eat up so much time and can be run without minis and battlemaps. It would be nice if that option was built right into the game. D&D began as a war-game and it will always have that element in any edition, but it's evolved to a point where there are other styles of play that (I hope) aren't the minority. Those should be supported.

And for a system which is so tightly focused around combat, it sure has felt like a beta version at times. I chalk this up to sloppy playtesting or playtesting with a narrow subset of players. I realize with a development schedule there's a press to get the product on shelves asap, but if you've got a problem with DCs, monster design, hit probabilities, I hope it would be worth it to get the game polished first. I caught on to several of these issues during my first month running 4e and changed what I could, it wasn't hard.

And I would like more support for gaming outside of combat - expanding on milestones/rests when you've only got one encounter per day, governing/building a keep, roleplaying dilemmas and choice trees, scouting, etc.

OTOH, as a DM I love how easy putting together my own adventures is - that has been one of 4e's strengths that I haven't seen in other tactically heavy games.

 

[FireLance]

2) Ridiculously unrealistic, gamist mechanics. A warlord can heal by yelling at people? Seems silly, but he does it for no other reason than he's a "leader". A paladin shooting lasers at enemies if they attack someone besides him? Laughably ridiculous, but he can do it because he's a "defender". Don't even get me started on "Come and Get It."

The way I see it, that's the price you have to pay if you want to stretch the limits of what can be accomplished by martial characters. Because you don't have the "it's magic!" handwave, the players (and the DM) need to work harder to ensure that the narrative remains realistic. If you don't want to make the effort, you can cut out the more fantasitic options for martial characters and still end up with a workable game - just one in which the martial characters are more limited.

That said, it shouldn't be an issue most of the time. A warlord's "shouting" (side note: why are warlords always "shouting" in these negative examples, anyway? It's almost as if they are caricatures deliberately designed to make warlords look bad) restores a character's determination and fighting spirit, which translates into a recovery of hit points. The character's wounds have not been healed, but he's fighting on in spite of them.

Similarly, you can look at the relationship between class role and class abilities in the other direction. The warlord doesn't heal because he is a leader; he is a leader because he can inspire his allies to keep fighting. The paladin doesn't mark because he's a defender; he is a defender because he has the divinely-granted ability to challenge an enemy to face him in combat, and to punish him if he does not.

But, if you strip the hyperbole out of the argument, there is a real core concern: 4E characters, even low-level ones, are larger than life. Those empowered by magical forces, whether arcane, divine, primal, psionic, or shadow, show much less restraint in the use of their abilities compared to previous editions. A paladin is much more magical in 4E: he can infuse his weapon with radiant energy and call down divine retribution on his enemies practically at will. Even martial characters routinely perform the improbable (at least by real-world standards). This can be a culture shock for players who prefer their characters to be more grounded in reality.

 

[billd91]

4e has some things going for it. It's reasonably fun to sit around with beer and pretzels and bash over a few encounters, rather like the D&D miniatures game. But it doesn't scratch my D&D itch like previous editions do. Some of the issues have already been mentioned and I'll add in my own.

Healing - I'm not a fan of externally sourced healing (like a potion) triggering an internal resource. I think it's a bad concept, it also brings us right back to the lack of hit points and healing resources driving a short work day - a step backward from 3e.

Sort-of dump stats - Allowing players to choose which 3 stats will drive their defenses was kind of a good idea in the sense that the defenses are no longer tied to a single stat that virtually must be maintained relatively high. It can also synergize well with the PC's offense, usually based on a primary stat, a secondary, and maybe a tertiary. Unfortunately, I find that also leads to pretty serious dump statting since you can virtually ignore 3 stats entirely (as long as you're willing to put up with a few low skill checks). But because there are still some differences in what the stats do (Con and Dex particularly), not all classes can dump stat the same. Compare the brute rogue with the artful dodger. The artful dodger can invest in Dex, Con, and Charisma and dump the other three but the brute can't. The same thing happens with characters relying on strength but needing hit points and surges. They can't so easily dump both Str and Con as someone who really only needs a decent Fort defense and hit points/surges.

Powers - I can get behind the idea of encounter powers for martials particularly, but not dailies. A better implementation would have been to dispense with martial dailies and just include a daily level of output for each encounter power. Then, the martial character can have a consistent fighting style but produce exceptional results when he feels the narrative demands it.
I also have problems with the daily powers for spellcasters - what if I want to play someone who specializes in a particular spell as his signature? In previous editions, I could prep a single spell multiple times. Not so, as far as I can tell, in 4e.

Static defenses - I tolerate them in Star Wars Saga Edition, but I don't really favor them. I very much prefer the saving throw to the static defense. It works better with action points and other meta-abilities that allow a player to modify his result after he sees the roll.

Flavor - I don't like some of the changes in game lore and flavor. I didn't appreciate the shift in storm giants. I didn't appreciate the shift on unicorns. I don't see much value being added to the game in changing the lore that had existed since at least 1e, particularly when 4e purported to be the latest edition in that particular branch of the game.

It became clearer as elements were previewed and once I read the initial books that 4e wasn't the game I wanted. And I had been pretty optimistic. I had been skeptical of 3e when it was announced but Eric Noah's news site and the previews showed me that 3e was the D&D I wanted to play. My experience with 4e was totally the opposite. It reinforced that the 3e strain of D&D, now embodied best by Pathfinder, was the version I wanted most of all.

 

[Ajar]

- Skill Challenges. This is one of the first things that started to stick out as I played 4th Edition, and I started disliking it relatively early in my time playing the system. One of the strongest points of Tabletop RPGs is the concept of "Emergent Gameplay" - being able to solve any given problem in a potentially infinite number of ways. This can be accomplished in Tabletop RPGs (And some video games, most notably Deus Ex) due to the structureless nature of the problems given. "There's a chasm. You need to get across the chasm. GO!" Taking away this possibility and replacing it with, "Alright, if you can get 6 skill checks you can get across the chasm," ends up being harmful to the aspect of Emergent Gameplay and in turn harmful to the game's nature as a Tabletop RPG.

Skill challenges are there in part to support DMs who aren't great at managing emergent gameplay. These DMs can just follow the structure and get something reasonable.

But I think skill challenges are more useful than just to help out new DMs. I've been DMing for about 15 years, and I'm reasonably comfortable with emergent gameplay, but I still love the skill challenge framework. I use it as a tool to support emergent gameplay, not as a straitjacket to constrain it. For me, it makes handling those emergent cases easier, because it gives me an easy numerical framework once I've decided about how hard I think the overall task should be. I don't tell the PCs that they're in a skill challenge, or how many successes they need; I just let them try whatever skills they think could help them, and set the DC to easy/medium/hard based on my gut feel. I'm also not afraid to modify my prepared skill challenges on the fly if the PCs come up with something I didn't expect. I find it works pretty well.

 

[jimmifett]

What I like about 4e:

DMing, DMing, DMing, did I mention DMing? Have some more DMing while you're at it.

Rituals. Rituals could use some work, i'll admit, but over all I like them. Here are the spells that are cool, but don't belong in combat.

Healing Surges. I get it that HP doesn't entirely represent physical injury, but also the resolve to fight, thus allowing martial healing. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, I don't get why others have such a problem with it.

Item Rarity. People moaned that players got access to magic items in the PHB. Along comes rarity, a common sense approach to putting items back in the DM's hands. Implemented perfectly? Perhaps not, but it's a long way from players walking into a city and expecting awesome gear to jump off shelves at them.

Essentials. It's different, it challenges preconcieved concepts of the system, and allows for interesting takes on existing archetypes. I particularly like the hunter as a controller.

Skill Challenges. Reminded me of the system from Heroes of Battle for determining the outcome of battles. I loved that system, and skill challenges allows me to build scenarios in that vein. As a DM, I keep my skill challenges secret, letting players do what they want and I asking for the occaisional check to back up what they are doing, then recording the success or failure for the challenge. I'll also have skill challenges spread out over multiple encounters or longer.

Choice of stats for defenses.

No hit dice. I don't want to be a glass barbarian with tons of strength, rolling 1s and 2s for HP each level. I'm perfectly content gaining a set amount of xp every level. I also don't want to be a 1 hit and I'm dead wizard.

Removal of blunt/piercing/whatever damage type silliness. Don't care for it.

What I don't like about 4e:

Formerly busted math. I don't see this as much of an issue anymore, other than having to manually convert older monsters, and it looks like even that is starting to get addressed.

Skill challenges. This is more due to DMs dealing with time constraints during public games such as LFR that skill challenges turn from a behind the scenes mechanic to the AMTRAK station, with the DM going around the table asking each player what they want to do.

Item Rarity. There needs to be a larger number of low level items, esp miscellaneous items that are useful, but aren't part of combat, typically. I'm talking things like feather fall tokens and such. Eberron has a vibrant low level magic item economy? Hard to tell based on existing items. Again, I can see the logic in this, players want magic items that allow them to more effectively kill things and take their stuff, how much room do we give items that don't do this? Lets give some examples and leave the rest for someone else or the DM.

Rituals/Spells in general. I believe there is a space between rituals and combat spells that is currently missing in 4e magic. I'd like that gap to be filled, but I don't know by what. Obviously there can be some balance issues here and it's a good place for a game to break.

DDI. It's getting better, very very slowly. Hopefully that will change with the VTT and a better release of the monster slider. I'm really disappointed from what was promised at launch that never come to fruition. I'm also displeased by Dra and Dun no longer being bundled. I also miss having them in print, but I can do without the many pages of ads from back in the print days. I just print them myself now, and store in binders.

Artificer. They just don't have the feel from 3.x anymore. The class needs a reboot.

What I like about other D20 systems (mostly PF):

PF Goblins. Not the same as my Eberron goblins, but damn if they aren't cute as a button made from a rusty razorblade!

PF Artwork. It's pretty.

Alchemist and Witch from PF APG. These classes look damned awesome. I'd love to see some of the stuff from alchemist moved into a 4e artificer.

Paizo's adventures. Fantastic adventures!

Saga Edition. Much love there. Sad to see it go, but i think they covered just about everything by the end. Particularly liked the injury track thing they had.

Eberron's 3.x cosmology.


What I don't like about other D20 systems:

3rd party content glut. Sure, the OGL has allowed some real gems to come to fruition, but it's surrounded by a garbage dump of utter crap that makes one want to avoid anything 3rd party. This has not changed with PF.

Perform ___/Craft ____ skills. I'm a hero, why am I bothering to craft arrows. They are straight sticks with feathers on them. This could be hand waived as something my chatacter just does bc he lives in the woods. Why am I crafting a sword? I pay sweaty ppl to spend months forging my blade from the star rock i found in the dragons' layer after I killed it. Then I pay someone else to turn the dragon's hide into my nifty new armor while i'm off fighting more monsters and sampling tavern wine and wenches. Craft (basketweaving) is never going to be useful to me. Anything I crafted was before I became an adventurer. Adventurering is where the real money is.

Perform... well.. I guess... but just make it freaking Perform, one skill, not a seperate skill for every damned instrument. If I take perform, I should select a group of instruments like weapon proficiencies. Take feats to be able to use exotic instruments. Simple woodwinds, simple strings, simple percussion, simple brass, complex woodwind, string, percussion, brass, exotic instruments. Pick a couple groups at creation, based on some stat mod math, and get more as feats. Done! Now I can rock out on my Astral Banjo of Dueling. I can also write some adventures that may require knowledge in performing an instrument. Since I know there are groupings of instruments, I don't have to worry too much about if Elvii Priestly the Bard can play a double guitar, he's got complex string instrument proficiency.

CRs. Don't like them. I like a battle with more than one or two enemies versus the party. I like knowing that this given monster should be a challenge to a given player of same level, and that x monsters is a challenge of x players. 4e got this one right.

Martial classes. 3.x gives spell casters lots of love. Good for them. Fighters want a piece of the action too. I enjoyed, what was it, Bo9S?, that brought new life into martial classes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

From the big picture perspective, what is wrong with 4E is really what is wrong with WotC management. There are two ways to successfully run a small to medium franchise (and D&D qualifies in that bucket, despite being the 800 lb gorilla of RPGs):

1. Slow and cautious; incremental changes; conservative, careful marketing; superb, accurate customer service; nonetheless, a clear plan of where the business is evolving.

2. Behind the scenes intense work; leading to a well orchestrated big marketing splash; not released until the "Awesome" factor is strong enough to override any major complaints; probably supported with a closed, expensive "beta" to iron out things that will kill the huge buzz; customer service that is always fast, even if a little off at times from the volume. Followed by a vacation for the staff to recharge, and then the second wave to capitalize on the splash.

You can do one or the other and be successful. You can't do both. A big company can sometimes do both, with different products in different divisions. Even they have trouble with it, though, because of corporate culture that inevitably builds around one style or the other. A company the size of WotC, not even "backed" by Hasbro, can never do both successfully.

Pick one, and go after it full bore. Either bounce on the high dive and jump in feet first, or do the swan dive--not something in between. If you fail to pick one, your management team has failed, and should be held responsible.

 

[jimmifett]

I'll add DDI, in the form of the compendium, to the + side of my 4e list. The compendium is incredibly useful. I'd like to be able to print out properly from it with color.
The current CB is OK, and has been getting better (I still think it is poorly implemented behind the scenes. the old one was too.) It still has a lot of issues, but it's getting there.

 

[Skyscraper]

I really like the entire power approach. Quite cool. Really versatile. Allows for a lot of customization.

I really dislike that the classes, although with a different (usually interesting) flavor, now have the same math. So an archer can do an area burst 1 that deals 1d10 + 5 damage and a mage can do the same.

Jimmifet posted above "Rituals/Spells in general. I believe there is a space between rituals and combat spells that is currently missing in 4e magic. I'd like that gap to be filled, but I don't know by what."

For me, that's the gist of the problem. The gap should be filled by spells or abilities that do something else than "X damage in Y area of effect with possible Z condition". It used to be special to be a fighter or a mage or a rogue or a cleric; now, not so much. Sure, the striker is the only one to get +2d6 striker damage, and not one but a few classes has training in Thievery. Woopie-do.

To have fun in a game, you also need to be able to cast spells on the spur of the moment with funky impacts, and have one class that needs the other for protection other than having 10 more hit points and 5 more AC points at level 1. Fighters used to be feared in combat; now? Not anymore than any other class, and arguably less than strikers.

By having removed the differences between the classes so much, 4E has also removed a very fun aspect of the game.

This being said, I still like a lot of stuff that 4E has brought, I play 4E in 3 different campaigns right now (and 2 short adventures), I wont list it all that's good and all that's bad. Just my main gripe, above.