11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[Aristotle]

I have to agree with the OP on all points. I've always had good ideas for characters that were fighters and rogues, but I've never played them because they felt boring to me after a few levels.

I would add rule modularity to the list. It feels like some modules could easily be replaced with a few minutes work. (i.e. low magic setting: characters get +1 to attack, damage, and all defenses every 5 levels. No magic weapons, armor, or neck slot items exist.) Others might take more work. Similarly it feels like you could blur the distinctions between roles by making a generic class for each power source. I'm really hoping for an unearthed arcana type supplement at some point that features that kind of modularity.

So that's why I ask - because as much as I like 4E, I cannot escape the feeling it's missing something.

I agree with this too though. I love the game, and have no intention of playing anything else right now, but sometimes it feels like something isn't right even when everything makes sense (to me) and everyone is having fun. I'm at a loss to explain it.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I remembered two other things I don't like about 4E:

- There's no good way of playing creatures significantly more powerful than the human norm. I mean, it's not as if Level Adjustment in 3.5 worked very well, but at least you could play a lich or vampire.

- There's no separate grouping of non-combat powers - powers that are cool and useful, but provide no combat bonus at all. I'm thinking of things like feats of strength for fighters, powers of oratory for paladins and clerics, and so on - powers that you could use in skill challenges and other role-playing situations.

For all its mechanical problems, Exalted has tons of examples of those. Heck, they even had cool powers for the Bureaucracy skill. While skill challenges in D&D 4E work well enough, they are missing the "wow" factor that many combat powers have.

 

[Reynard]

- There's no separate grouping of non-combat powers - powers that are cool and useful, but provide no combat bonus at all. I'm thinking of things like feats of strength for fighters, powers of oratory for paladins and clerics, and so on - powers that you could use in skill challenges and other role-playing situations.

One of the things that turns me off most about 4E is it's almost monolithic focus on combat, particularly in regards to what the PCs are capable of and what monsters are like. Now, I like the monster stat block for is clean, utilitarian qualities. But the MM is truly uninspiring. Same with the PHB. I cannot for the life of me read through the PHB in preparation for a 4E game I will be playing in and get inspired or excited about an actual character. All I see is a pair of very narrow combat capabilities per class.

This probably wouldn't be so bad if it was only the focus of the rules that was centered on combat. After all, 1e and 4E are very similar in this regard: the PHB consists mostly of how your character can kill things, while the DMG provides a bunch of material on all sorts of neat stuff. Unfortunately, 4E took that extra step where the focus of play is centered on combat as well. the idea, as laid out in the DMG adventure design section, is an hour per combat (too long!) and some time for kibbitzing before and after. i understand the reason -- combat is fun and D&D is supposed to be fun; 2+2=4 -- but all that other fun stuff (exploration, resource management, followers and strongholds, operational play, etc...) got cut because it was (and I am sure "is", I know my tastes aren't shared by many) not considered fun. Which leaves combat.

Man, I remember some great sessions where there wasn't a bit of combat. Not because everyone was busy role-playing (though that happened too and it was great, but that's not edition dependent) but because the party was struggling to get from A to B on the way to defeat McBaddie McGuffineister without starving, getting lost or getting eaten by something nasty and horrible and thoroughly out of their league in the middle of the wilderness or the depths of the dungeon. I remember players statting up, naming and writing out backgrounds for all of their 9th level followers, satffing their keeps and trying to squeeze every last penny out of their won treasure just to make upkeep costs. I remember parties standing around a statue with a million gp ruby in its forhead, spending forever and a day trying to figure out whether they should go for it, and how, until one party finally broke and went for a straight on grab (soon followed by the clatter of 4d6 drop the lowest). I remember 4 out of 5 players sitting with rapt attention on me and the wizard player as a magical duel unfolded, never once feeling bored or useless in the process. All of these sessions were awesome fun, and they happened in every edition up till now. And every one of those things has been excised in favor of cool combat abilities and "balance".

4E has some great ideas for keeping D&D combat interesting. Too bad it sacrificied nearly everything else to achieve that.

 

[Henry]

...Unfortunately, 4E took that extra step where the focus of play is centered on combat as well. the idea, as laid out in the DMG adventure design section, is an hour per combat (too long!) and some time for kibbitzing before and after. i understand the reason -- combat is fun and D&D is supposed to be fun; 2+2=4 -- but all that other fun stuff (exploration, resource management, followers and strongholds, operational play, etc...) got cut because it was (and I am sure "is", I know my tastes aren't shared by many) not considered fun. Which leaves combat.

Man, I remember some great sessions where there wasn't a bit of combat...the party was struggling to get from A to B on the way to defeat McBaddie McGuffineister without starving, getting lost or getting eaten by something nasty and horrible and thoroughly out of their league in the middle of the wilderness or the depths of the dungeon.

However, none of that disappeared, from what I can tell - Chapter 2 is all about exploration, pacing, narration, how to keep suspense, etc., Chapter 5 is in part about keeping some dice action for players who love to roll their dice, without turning things into yet another combat for the players who don't like lots of combat. Chapter 9's all about making a cohesive world to adventure in, and, outside of the DMG, that Dungeoncraft series online has been pretty good in some of the stuff about making living, breathing worlds for DMs. For us long-experienced dungeon masters, it might not be enough talbe fare, but they do treat it with a significant page count for the novice DM to dig into.

In my opinion, this may have been the best book since the very first DMG for actually giving DMs good advice on how to do his thing. Goodness knows the second edition DMG didn't, and the 3e DMG really didn't do the job it needed to, either. The 1st DMG, followed by the 4th DMG, and then 3.5 edition's DMG2, are the three best ones in the series when it comes to giving DM's both good advice and lots of ideas for world-filler for their games. Heck, 4e sees the return of Dungeon Dressing for different rooms in a dungeon (p.110), and random dungeons (p.190) something missing since 1979!

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

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.

Since the d20 Wiki doesn't run under the OGL/d20 License either (it uses all sorts of D&D supplements), this won't be an issue - it falls under the fan site policy.

 

[FireLance]

I'd like something halfway between minions and regular monsters.

Just a quick plug for something I've worked on: Adjuncts.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Speed: 6 + 2 = 8; two move actions = 16.

Ah, I think there is some inconsistency in my "math" - I am pretty sure I had written down 16 x 16 somewhere, but apparently it got lost over editing or something... Silly me... I should really reread my posts before posting...

 

[Ginnel]

I remembered two other things I don't like about 4E:

- There's no good way of playing creatures significantly more powerful than the human norm. I mean, it's not as if Level Adjustment in 3.5 worked very well, but at least you could play a lich or vampire.

- There's no separate grouping of non-combat powers - powers that are cool and useful, but provide no combat bonus at all. I'm thinking of things like feats of strength for fighters, powers of oratory for paladins and clerics, and so on - powers that you could use in skill challenges and other role-playing situations.

Well I'm giving a one shot a try asking players what concepts they want to play then writing out the classes/races myself this will probably include the characters playing Monster Classes, where the powers given will be based on a made up Monster rather than a predefined class, I'm sure I'll fit in some feats of strength esque utility powers for use out of combat too.

 

[Andor]

If by fighter you mean only the fighter class and the core feats then yes they were kinda limited. If you expand fighter to include 'guys who hit things with sword' and include CW and PHB II and (especially) Bo9S then there is plenty to do with them in 3e.

Likewise rituals are nice but the Invocation rules from 3e beat them hollow and were there first.

But this is a 'What do you like about 4e' thread so:

At will powers, for the options they present to the set of default actions.

The concise flavorfullness present in the racial powers.

Unlocking monster HP from level.

Flattening the power growth curve.

Unfortunately my giant bugaboo with 4e remains it's abstractness. What the heck does Bolstering Stike do? What does it look like to someone next to that Paladin? I find it hard to immerse myself in character when I don't know what the world looks like through that character's eyes.

 

[D'karr]

4E has some great ideas for keeping D&D combat interesting. Too bad it sacrificied nearly everything else to achieve that.

I'll have to disagree. I was sitting at the car shop this morning going for a state inspection and I brought my DMG with me. I started reading the book again to get more familiar with all the info it had.

Chapter 1 has a great section for identifying what type of players you have and what makes them tick. So that the DM can find good ground to provide a fun game for each type of player he might have.

Chapter 2 concentrates on running the game. It has a really good section on the modes of the game and how each one interacts. Exploration is one of those modes. The chapter also covers pacing and how to make the "environment" exciting. Also how to dispense information to keep suspense and give rewards for clever exploration. Improvisation, props, etc. This chapter is chock full of good advice to run exciting games, even without combat.

That's as far as I got with the reading this morning but other sections also include awesome tools for running games that have combat, little combat or no combat.

Your example about traveling from A to B trying to avoid starvation, etc. That is quite easily modeled with a Skill Challenge. A mage duel, can be a skill challenge or a combat encounter. Even just a skill check if you choose. I can see opposing mages trying to one-up each other with the use of rituals, arcana checks, history checks, religion checks, diplomacy and even intimidation.

So in short, I don't understand these comments about the game ditching all these elements in favor of combat because I can easily point in the book to where it either gives me a tool to do that, or advice on how to do that. And to top it off it gives me advice on how to keep ALL my players involved and having fun.