11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[Nahat Anoj]

I absolutely adore 4e and feel it's the best edition to date, no contest. But I'll start with my top dislikes:

• No Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Barbarians, Druids, Bards and Monks at launch.
• Fights can drag sometimes, particularly with larger parties, it doesn't feel faster than 3e did (at least at low levels, I've never played 3e beyond level 12).
• I'd like something halfway between minions and regular monsters.
• No minion creation guidelines.
• The MM is missing some much loved monsters, like metallic dragons.
• Frequently trying to come up with in-game justifications for the powers.
• Ability score prerequistes for some feats - I really don't like requiring any sort of prereqs for feats. But because those prereqs *are* there ...
• No mention of ability score retraining, so that you can get those ability score prereq feats later in case you need them.
• No mention of ways PCs to make their own mundane gear (weapons and armor, mostly).
• No mention of how PCs might remove a condition (such as being on fire) by themselves instead of waiting to make a save.
• No Martial Controller! I want one!

Here are my top likes:

• It's much more straightforward and easier for me to make a balanced, "by the book" encounter, from minions to traps to boss monsters to solo monsters.
• The overall darker tone and pushing the "points of light" concept to the forefront.
• The new cosmology, from the new planar structure to the new pantheon (the best D&D pantheon ever, IMO). It's condensed, refined, industrial-strength D&D.
• Warlocks, Warlords, Dragonborn, and Tieflings have become iconic D&D races and classes for me.
• Streamlined skill list and how every stat pretty much goes up by 1/2 level.
• Skill challenges are a great idea, so great IMO that I'm willing to forgive their initial mistakes.
• Fort, Ref, and Will Defenses rock, and I like the new saving throw mechanic (particuarly as applied to death and dying).
• The way healing works, from healing surges to second wind to being completely healed after a long rest.
• The DMG, particularly the lengths it goes to to insure that DMs try to incorporate players' ideas and to make dynamic, tactically interesting, stunt-filled encounters.
• Explicit discussion of roles in combat and designing classes according to that.
• Rituals allow D&D to played with no power source other than the Martial source and still have magic involved. Kickass! I just want an intelligence-based Martial controller!

IMO, my likes dramatically outweigh my dislikes. Except for when I was young and new to the game - before I got old and jaded - I've never had so much fun playing D&D.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

While I agree that it's not "perfect" yet, I think the problem is far from being as pronounced as in 3E. Sometimes, it was just a matter of the absurd high ability score requirements, but sometimes its also a matter of the several class abilities, spells and feats you had to get.
In 4E, you just need to look at your ability scores. If you pick the standard spread for scores, you should eventually be able to qualify for most feats. The general ability increases at Level 11 and Level 21 certainly make it a lot more easier to get one of this Score 13-requirement feats, and this is what will probably be the ones you want to get most.

Yeah, that's true. It's much improved.

 

[Vael]

I keep switching back and forth on the unified class mechanic. On the one hand, I like that each class isn't its own subsystem ... you just need to read its different powers. OTOH, I played spellcasters in 3.5 ... I miss all my spell slots (and even preparing spells, though only at lower levels).

Otherwise, I agree with the OP.

 

[amethal]

Aren't incantations and complex skill checks in the Unearthed Arcana book?

They are.

From memory the book has something like 2 example incantations, and the system for creating your own was pretty cumbersome. (At least for me, the one time I designed an incantation to transform a rock gnome into a whisper gnome.)

I don't know how similar complex skill checks are to skill challenges, as I don't have any 4th edition books. They don't seem that similar, from what I've read on ENWorld.

I haven't read it, but if I am not mistaken, it is a book of WotC?

Yes, the last one I bought.

In a way, that was an inconsistency in 3E. Character Classes tend to define a certain "role" and were used to describe HD, skill points, BAB and Saves. But for monsters, they didn't go from the personality/combat role approach, they went from the origin (outsider, elemental, humanoid and so on) approach. If I'd wanted to redo how monsters are done in 3E, I would probably remove the idea of type/origin defining HD and instead base it on the "goals" or "role" of the monster. If it makes sense that a Ranger has different saves then a Fighter, why shouldn't be the same be true for a Demon that fires energy burst and a Demon that fights with a greatsword?

That's an interesting idea.

I remember the glee with which my DM used sylphs, from MM2 (I think). They are fey in everything but type, which is outsider - which makes them much more of a challenge than they otherwise would be.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

They are.

From memory the book has something like 2 example incantations, and the system for creating your own was pretty cumbersome. (At least for me, the one time I designed an incantation to transform a rock gnome into a whisper gnome.)

I never tried them. Urban Arcana (d20 Modern) supplement also had incantations, but I don't know how different they are. The easiest thing would be to base them on existing spells.

I don't know how similar complex skill checks are to skill challenges, as I don't have any 4th edition books. They don't seem that similar, from what I've read on ENWorld.

IIRC, Complex skill checks meant just using the same skill multiple times, and you had to achieve a certain number of successes. Skill Challenges combine multiple skills (any skills that make sense). The advantages of 4E is that due to the changes of the math and the stacking of bonuses, the skill ranges are far more predictable, and therefore there is a general guideline on DCs.

Skill Challenges are a framework that you can use for other games, too. I think the core idea is to "model" a complex scenario (be it a urban chase, a social encounter, or investigating a crime scene) simply by saying "these are the skills you can use, and these are the number of successes you have to get and the number of failures you want to avoid. The rest is done by narrating/role-playing the individual checks, basically explaining what you attmept to do when you roll your Nature check during overland travel. (It could describe how you hunt down some food for the party, or it could be you finding a safe route through a forest).

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Just for a random sampling:

As of this post, of the replies to Jurgen's post (including the starter)

4 were positive leaning in their opinion/assessment
7 were negative leaning in their opinion/assessment (this inlcuded Jurgen's what I don't like post)
9 were neutral or didn't give a general impression
4 were mixed nearly evenly or tried a balanced approach (or damned with faint praise)

Just a snapshot of what people are thinking, keep it in mind.

People like to argue, so I'm not surprised by these replies. Heck, I like to argue, too.

For a more accurate snapshot of what people really think, the recent poll probably works fairly well.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I agree with you that the fighters were not dull in 3.5. They only became so when you limited the feat selection to the core books, but even with just those rules, the fighter could make interesting choices. It all really depended on the player.

Also, prestige classes added a lot of flavor to the fighter and that is really something that opened the door for the fighter. Fighters were only as dull as the limits the DM put on them.

I tend to be annoyed when I have to rely on supplements to make a certain character concept interesting. That's also why I am judging 4E on its initial release as well - I'm just as annoyed that they left out several classic classes in 4E.

Sure, you could individualize fighters in 3.5. But they still tended to have a single type of attack that they would stick to pretty much all of the time to be effective. Not very interesting.

I agree with that; and really, for me anyway, having a bunch of 2nd or higher level “minions” in 3.5 with a few hit points wasn’t all that hard to deal with. IMO, the only thing that makes the 4e minion different is that they basically capped the ACs of the PCs to within reach of the minions to be effective in hitting them.

4E minions are actually a genuine threat to the PCs now, which is a huge difference. I've used a bunch of them in gameplay, and the players were always worried about the minions in the fight so that they concentrated on taking out first. A huge shift in combat dynamics, in my opinion.

 

[DM-Rocco]

People like to argue, so I'm not surprised by these replies. Heck, I like to argue, too.

For a more accurate snapshot of what people really think, the recent poll probably works fairly well.

Polls are not really a fair assessment of anything. I checked out your post to see what it was all about and here you link it to an edition war thread. IMO, you should have let your arguments stand on their own. Now it just feels like a trap instead of a place to discuss likes and dislikes. I thought people brought up good points on each side, now, it feels like you just wanted people to come out of the closest and express views or read your thread when they might not have before.

I found those results very interesting. In your linked thread it appears that 4e is more popular, but that doesn't really mean anything. When I was manning the Dragon Roots Magazine booth at GenCon I got a lot of feed back from people telling me that they either were stuck in AD&D or wanted more 3.5 content. Very few actually said they made the move to 4e.

So, IMO, it either means that this poll is not all that accurate because the people not playing 4e are ignoring this thread (and/or are tired of getting bashed for defending an edition they like) or that the ENWorld is more in tune with 4e. The truth can't be judged by those results

That said, we offer both editions in our magazine so I don't care one way or another, I was just making an observation.

However, you can't claim that poll for anything unless you force every ENWorld member to read and vote on it.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I tend to be annoyed when I have to rely on supplements to make a certain character concept interesting. That's also why I am judging 4E on its initial release as well - I'm just as annoyed that they left out several classic classes in 4E.

Sure, you could individualize fighters in 3.5. But they still tended to have a single type of attack that they would stick to pretty much all of the time to be effective. Not very interesting.

Then I'm not sure what you are complaining about, the whole 4e core set is, in spite of making some classes better, very generic. Hell, the feat selection really blows. Too many supplements spoils the game, but a nice balance is fine. By dismissing everything but the core rules you have limited the game.

They had to leave out those classes, instead of taking up 3 pages per class, each class not takes up 10 or more pages because of the need to add in more powers. It is the biggest PHB in the history of D&D and it doesn't cover everything.

As to having to reply on certain supplements to make certain classes more interesting, well, it goes both ways. Wizards are interesting, an Incantrix is more so, an Arch Mage even more. Fighters by themselves, with just the 3.5 core books, were fun to play and it was up to the player to be creative to find new uses for the feats and such. Sorry if you never figured that out.

4E minions are actually a genuine threat to the PCs now, which is a huge difference. I've used a bunch of them in gameplay, and the players were always worried about the minions in the fight so that they concentrated on taking out first. A huge shift in combat dynamics, in my opinion.

IMO, the only difference in combat dynamics is that now, because of WOTC “balancing” the math of the game, the minions can actually hit the PCs at higher levels because it is harder to get outrageous ACs. Other than that, they still seem to pose the same threat as the 3.5 minions.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Polls are not really a fair assessment of anything.

I think polls are a great way to get the "pulse" of a population, and, when done properly, are fairly accurate. However, I'd be hesitant to extend the results of internet polls to the general gaming community for two main reasons. First, these kinds of polls are self-selected - even though it's relatively easy to click an answer, only people with strong feelings one way or the other are likely to respond. Second, the population of gamers who frequent EN World - computer savvy, articulate (in general ), passionate about their game, aware of events in the industry - may not be representive of the population of gamers at large.

However, I do think the EN World poll is a better indicator of the level of interest in 4e than the number and nature of posts to this thread. One reason is that the number of respondents is larger, but the main reason is that the level of self-selection in this thread is even higher than the internet poll. Only people who truly give a damn one way or the other will spend 10-20 minutes reading the thread and writing a response. The average gamer - perhaps even the average EN Worlder - just doesn't care.