11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[Dimitris]

Thanks for the d20 NPC Wiki. I liked it very much !! I am sticking with 3.5 / Pathfinder and I am going to use it.

After all, one of the main reasons that I decide to stay with the 3.5 / Pathfinder is the fact that is open due to the OGL.

I believe that even if you wanted to, you can't support the community with a wiki like this in the 4e. The GSL is much more restrictive.

Dimitris

 

[Samuel Leming]

Wow!

We've got people in this thread disagreeing with each other about 4e and they're actually being nice to each other! You guys impress me.

I hope I didn't just jinx it...

Sam

 

[D'karr]

Wow!

We've got people in this thread disagreeing with each other about 4e and they're actually being nice to each other! You guys impress me.

I hope I didn't just jinx it...

Sam

Yep, it is possible to do so.

I do hope you did not jinx it too...

 

[Imaro]

I dont like anything about 4e.
I really tried when I got the core set to like it, and try and find something with it that was redeemable.
Its a ok game in and of itself. It isnt D&D. It's Exalted d20 with the numbers filed off, and Exalted does it better.

You know Arashi, I'd actually say "It isnt D&D. It's Earthdawn d20 with the numbers filed off, and Earthdawn does it better.". Actually I think Earthdawn and Exalted do what D&D 4e tries to do (as far as powers, magic, rituals, etc.) better than D&D 4e. Why? Because they actually justify why powers (talents/charms) work the way they do within the realities of the gameworlds, and don't impose nonsensical restrictions on uses per..5min or days.

D&D 4e goes the route of not justifying why any of the powers work the way they do, and seeing many other games with similar mechanics where they are justiified and made consistent with the games reality...I can't help but feel it was a little lazy as far as design goes.

I'm currently running an Exalted game, so I'd like to chime in on that.

First of all, Exalted (at least, Solar Exalted) are much, much more powerful). In Exalted, you can have a power as a starting character that allows you to parry a mountain thrown at you, and I've not seen anything like that in D&D 4E.

Furthermore, Solar Exalted aren't really that good at teamwork. Yes, each caste has its own specialty, but each of them is supposed to be a Glorious Leader in its own right, so they don't have that many powers that directly help with teamwork tactics within its own circle.

Finally, Exalted really does not have much of a concept of "Combat Balance". It's extremely hard to gauge just what kinds of enemies are appropriate for the player characters, as their combat abilities are all over the map.

I mean, I like Exalted. It's a fun game, and I've learned a lot about high-powered gaming, but I really cannot see much of a similarity between it and D&D 4E - D&D 4E remains D&D to the core, despite all the changes.

As far as teamwork goes, well the Dragonblooded have that niche in the Exalted world and thus if you want a game that centers on teamwork you would play the DB instead of Solars. Solars are lone badass heroes like Riddick, Lancelot, Elric, Wolverine, etc. They may have companions and a team but they definitely have the power where they can do things their way as opposed to the teams way. It's never been a big deal to me when I've ran or played Solars.

I think both the charms and magic (not power level but concept) can be used to draw parallels to Exalted...however I think the biggest comparison can be drawn between the two games cosmologies, D&D 4e's cosmology seems to be very similar to Exalted's (but toned down a few notches) upon first glance.

I use XP to gauge enemies when I play Exalted... but I get what you're saying. Exalted gives characters a chance to create characters who are powerful in whatever concept they create...I think it's imperative a GM know his players characters and personalize challenges in Exalted.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know Arashi, I'd actually say "It isnt D&D. It's Earthdawn d20 with the numbers filed off, and Earthdawn does it better.". Actually I think Earthdawn and Exalted do what D&D 4e tries to do (as far as powers, magic, rituals, etc.) better than D&D 4e. Why? Because they actually justify why powers (talents/charms) work the way they do within the realities of the gameworlds, and don't impose nonsensical restrictions on uses per..5min or days.

D&D 4e goes the route of not justifying why any of the powers work the way they do, and seeing many other games with similar mechanics where they are justiified and made consistent with the games reality...I can't help but feel it was a little lazy as far as design goes.

Well, I think - from my very limited experience in either games (Earthdawn or Exalted) that 4E does the mechanics better. (But take that with a grain of salt - again, limited experiences).

I know that others brought up the Earthdawn comparison (especially in regards to healing surges). One view on "martial" abilities is that they aremagic (just like in Earthdawn). The entire "moxie" thing of hit points, the ability of mortal man being able to engage a dragon or a humanoid 10 times your size in melee, they all don't describe something mundane occurring, and can you really explain this with mundane skill?

Martial Powers are like the wires used in movies like Matrix. They are invisible (in movies they are simply edited out), but they allow you to perform moves that normally wouldn't be possible.

I am looking forward to Redbricks 4E Earthdawn.

I think both the charms and magic (not power level but concept) can be used to draw parallels to Exalted...however I think the biggest comparison can be drawn between the two games cosmologies, D&D 4e's cosmology seems to be very similar to Exalted's (but toned down a few notches) upon first glance.

Did Exalted 1e have a different cosmology then Exalted 2e? Because I found the description in 2e not similar. But maybe we are looking at different parts?

 

[DM-Rocco]

Some things about 4e design I like:

- Increased use of terrain as a feature...which means more interesting set-piece encounters and having the terrain and surroundings actually play a part in said encounters
- Points of light in the darkness
- The "official" adventures so far; both very good (I haven't seen H3 yet)
- The artwork and general look of it...big improvement over 3e
- I haven't tried it yet, but if what others say is true then faster char-gen at all levels can only be a good thing.

Some things that bother me at the design level:

- Way too big a gap between commoners and 1st-level characters (ditto for minions and non-minions)
- Too much realism sacrificed to efficiency e.g. 1-1-1-1 diagonals, firecubes, etc.
- Too much blurring between the classes - caster classes can fight, and non-caster classes can do magic...wtf?
- Overemphasis on balance again at cost of realism. In reality, not everyone is going to be able to help much in every situation...so why force that into the game?

Lanefan

I love the use of terrain in 4e. This is something we did a lot of on our own but it is nice to see it in maps and such.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Yep, it is possible to do so.

I do hope you did not jinx it too...

Dang it. I was going to say something clever and witty laced with sarcastic undertones, but I better not.

 

[DM-Rocco]

The numbers mean something to me - If I play a RPG, I want to use the numbers that define my characters because they represent this character. If a session never requires me to use any of my character abilities, I feel a bit like I wasted my time, or at least didn't really play that character. It was just me, thinking about a fictional situation and reacting to it, and the person I was impersonating didn't matter.

But that's not enough, sure. I also want to feel challenged myself - by choosing which character abilities I use, and how. In combat, these are tactical decisions - which ally do I aid in his attacks, which enemy do I take out first (and how), which ally do I protect, how can I maneuver my opponents into a situation more favorable to me.


Well, "magic" is not realistic at all, and yet we want it in our fantasy games. My view on this is that a role-playing game is still a game. Imbalances are not a sign of a good game. In reality, someone trained in using a gun might be a lot more deadly and survive a lot longer than one with just some martial arts training. But in a game that includes both options, they should be equally valid (assuming equal cost, yada yada ).
This is not a simulationist perspective, I suppose, but I find the "validity" of all available roles in a role-playing game very important for my enjoyment of the game.

There are other gameplay concerns for this - I like having the ability to make "fair" challenges for my PCs when I DM. I want the ability to predict how tough any situation (be it a combat encounter, or anything else that will resolved with dice) will be for them. A game that doesn't ensure balance across the board makes this very difficult.
But I might be willing to compromise here - if an individual class or character is not good at certain situations, give me tools to handle this difference. If a Noble is inherently inferior in combat to a wizard or a fighter, give me a number that describes this difference so I can take it into account. If a Fighter is inherently inferior in a social situation then a Noble, again, tell me how much so, and I can take it into account.
I still find this inferior to using balance across a board (to be expected by a compromise), because it still makes it likely that one or more players will not enjoy important parts of the game as others, simply due to their choice of character.

Well, of course magic is not "real" but that doesn't mean that "reality" can't fit into the realm of fantasy.

I think what he means, and what I prefer, is the suspension of disbelief. I can watch just about any movie, but if the suspension of disbelief doesn’t ground itself in some for of reality or otherwise explain itself, I lose interest in the movie. The same applies for Roleplaying.

I know that magic doesn’t exist in the real world, but the game comes up with things that make it possible, whether it is pacts with dark beings (warlock), the use of components and symbols to get a desired effect (wizards) or genetic abnormalities resulting in powers (sorcerers). Things that aren’t grounded in reality are obscure rules that come into play and make no sense. Attacks of opportunity, or opportunity in 4e, is a good example. In 4e, you get an attack on everyone that comes close and provokes an attack. So, if you were to stand in a doorway as 1 million goblins rushed through the door way that you were defending you would get 1 attack on each minion of the million.

While the ability to cast a fireball isn’t “real” it could be reasonably explained in a fantasy setting. I can’t find any reality in the breaking of physics that it would entail to attack each of the 1 million goblins coming through the door with a sword. Not only would you not be able to swing the sword that much in one round because your arms would tire, or could you even get in that many blows in 6 seconds but the bodies would pile up very quickly.

So, at least for me, if it breaks the boundaries of physics, it disinterests me.

I like some realism in my games and dismiss things that don’t make sense in some form regarding suspension of disbelief.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, of course magic is not "real" but that doesn't mean that "reality" can't fit into the realm of fantasy.

I think what he means, and what I prefer, is the suspension of disbelief. I can watch just about any movie, but if the suspension of disbelief doesn’t ground itself in some for of reality or otherwise explain itself, I lose interest in the movie. The same applies for Roleplaying.

I know that magic doesn’t exist in the real world, but the game comes up with things that make it possible, whether it is pacts with dark beings (warlock), the use of components and symbols to get a desired effect (wizards) or genetic abnormalities resulting in powers (sorcerers). Things that aren’t grounded in reality are obscure rules that come into play and make no sense. Attacks of opportunity, or opportunity in 4e, is a good example. In 4e, you get an attack on everyone that comes close and provokes an attack. So, if you were to stand in a doorway as 1 million goblins rushed through the door way that you were defending you would get 1 attack on each minion of the million.

While the ability to cast a fireball isn’t “real” it could be reasonably explained in a fantasy setting. I can’t find any reality in the breaking of physics that it would entail to attack each of the 1 million goblins coming through the door with a sword. Not only would you not be able to swing the sword that much in one round because your arms would tire, or could you even get in that many blows in 6 seconds but the bodies would pile up very quickly.
.

If I wanted to get serious about this extreme example, here is my approach:

1) 1 million goblins won't come through that door. A goblin has a speed of 6 squares, and using running, he could move up to 16 squares per round. This means the maximum number of goblins that could get through that door are the number of goblins that can be within 16 squares of it. Since you can have per RAW only 1 goblin per square, this leaves you with 16 x 16 = 256 goblins. (assuming they only get to the door and then disappear into thin air, not thinking about where they end up)
2) An attack does not describe a single "swing" of a sword, it presents a series of swings, feints, parries and moves that you can perform within 6 seconds in a 5 x 5 ft wide area and extending into a 15 x 15 ft wide area. Hence, if in these 6 seconds 144 goblins come through the area, why shouldn't your series of swings, feints, moves and parries be able to affect them?
Imagine, 144 goblins entering through a single door - that looks pretty much like a constant stream of bodies, and if you swing your sword around, you're bound to hit a lot, and you certainly won't make one sword swing per enemy. It's a bit like cleave, except you don't need a feat or power to explain this happening.

Well, lucky I didn't think seriously about this and wasted your and my time with coming up with a solution to explain the scenario, right?

 

[DM-Rocco]

If I wanted to get serious about this extreme example, here is my approach:

1) 1 million goblins won't come through that door. A goblin has a speed of 6 squares, and using running, he could move up to 16 squares per round. This means the maximum number of goblins that could get through that door are the number of goblins that can be within 16 squares of it. Since you can have per RAW only 1 goblin per square, this leaves you with 16 x 16 = 256 goblins. (assuming they only get to the door and then disappear into thin air, not thinking about where they end up)
2) An attack does not describe a single "swing" of a sword, it presents a series of swings, feints, parries and moves that you can perform within 6 seconds in a 5 x 5 ft wide area and extending into a 15 x 15 ft wide area. Hence, if in these 6 seconds 144 goblins come through the area, why shouldn't your series of swings, feints, moves and parries be able to affect them?
Imagine, 144 goblins entering through a single door - that looks pretty much like a constant stream of bodies, and if you swing your sword around, you're bound to hit a lot, and you certainly won't make one sword swing per enemy. It's a bit like cleave, except you don't need a feat or power to explain this happening.

Well, lucky I didn't think seriously about this and wasted your and my time with coming up with a solution to explain the scenario, right?

ROFL
Um, yeah. Okay, even if you managed to fit 144 goblins within the squares needed to get in that area there is just no way for you to hit all of them in 6 seconds. Well, okay, if all the goblins where in a giant canon and you held your sword/weapon at head height and the canon shot all the goblins through in a burst a speed then maybe, but I'm sure your own arms would be taken off too

Ohh, in 4e you don't run at 4 times your movement, you just get a +2.

And, maybe they are all entering the doorway with an extradimensional portal where you can fit 1 million people in tight quarters.