11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[Khuxan]

I suppose it particularly appeals to those as a solution that like different sub-systems for different classes. I am not so much a fan of them, because I pray to the evil demon overlord of game balance and know that he disapproves of such sub-systems on account of them being hardly balanceable.

Were I to run a 3.5 game again I would definitely emphasise the subsystems - reserve feat spellcasters, maneuver combatants, power point psionicists, pact binders - because that variety and difference in playstyle is one I miss in 4E. It's still there, and in some ways emphasised by the roles, but even so.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Were I to run a 3.5 game again I would definitely emphasise the subsystems - reserve feat spellcasters, maneuver combatants, power point psionicists, pact binders - because that variety and difference in playstyle is one I miss in 4E. It's still there, and in some ways emphasised by the roles, but even so.

Well, there is some fun to be had with it. But also a lot of headache. Maybe in a few years, I will want that kind of fun again, even if it comes with the headache. As for now, I revel in the joy of stream-lining mixed with exception-based design.

 

[Jack99]

This is just a prefered style of play for our group, but we like the game to be lethal and feel like we are in backs to the wall, you are dead and so is the world if you lose types of encounters that leave us exhausted, spent, and near dead. It takes a while to get that kind of a feel with a system. Took us a bit in 3E, I'm sure we'll get it down for 4E. But 4E definitely isn't that way out of the box. Out of the box the advantage is strongly with the players. I guess that is how they wanted it.

But 3e wasn't like that out of the box either - In fact, if you compare that way, 4e is much much harder than 3e.

No doubt, if you want combats that pushes players to their outmost limit, you need to pile on the xp (around +50-100% IME). But this was the same before. In order to challenge and push them until the breaking point in 3.5, I would run EL +4 or +5 encounters. I fail to see how this makes 4e easier. The only difference is, that if you burned all you had in 3.5, the party had no choice but to rest. In 4e, it is usually possible to continue, since they always have encounter powers and at-will powers.

And one more thing. A solo level 5 vs a level 5 party is not supposed to be a hard encounter. That is a normal encounter. If you want the solo's to be nasty mo-fo's add some trash mobs to complement it. Using a higher level solo can be dangerous. (Just some advice in case you didn't know. You probably do).

Cheers

 

[D'karr]

Indeed, I am always a little surprised by that. It seems dishonest at first, but well, it is true - you could introduce this into D&D 3E. It very much changed the entire game and most non-spellcaster core (and base) classes are invalidated if you want to "fix" 3e with these 3 classes, but it's probably possible.

Well, I'm not saying or even implying that it is dishonest, just interesting. Because the argument seems to be that the way to make 3e more interesting for melee combatants is to shift those classes closer to what 4e does. At that point some of the complaints about the limitations 4e imposes on encounter powers seem a little weird.

I suppose it particularly appeals to those as a solution that like different sub-systems for different classes. I am not so much a fan of them, because I pray to the evil demon overlord of game balance and know that he disapproves of such sub-systems on account of them being hardly balanceable.

I don't worry too much about balance in that manner. I prefer 4e because it took care of balancing combat by making sure that the available actions "cost" the same in combat for each class. But it also leaves the door open for the DM to handle a lot of things that are not spelled out in the rules. That part is what I like the most. Instead of feeling constrained because there is a "rule" about something, I'm mostly thankful that there are no rules about certain things.

At level 4? Wasn't it usually beginning at 1st level? Including the "I have to take some suboptimal feats that I wouldn't take otherwise to get there".

This was something frustrating at several different junctions. If you knew you wanted to take a certain Prestige Class you usually started planning for it at 1st level. Like you mentioned some of the classes had some pretty stupid requirements (Toughness??). Then there was the case of a new sourcebook coming out that had a particularly interesting class. At that point your character either, rather serendipitously, met most of the requirements and within a level or two could get there, or you really needed to start a new character to ever have a chance of playing that class. Until PHB2 there were no retraining guidelines so your choices were limited unless your DM decided to waive the requirements or make the requirements roleplay based, which is what I did several times.

In 4e the feat requirements also impose a certain level of pre-planning. Though I don't think it is as harsh as the pre-requisites for prestige classes. If you use one of the point buy methods for assigning attributes you are not going to be far off the mark for most feats, except racial ones. In addition, I've noticed that most feats seem to follow a "theme" that makes them more appropriate for certain classes. Because of this, most of the pre-requisites are easily met by being a member of that class. Because as you build that class you would have mostly concentrated on the same attributes that the feat has.

The advantage of 4e right now is that the list of feat requirements is short and appears all in one place. That will change as more sourcebooks get published, but if they continue to "theme" the feats the problem should not get much worse.

In addition, like in 3e using the PHB2 guidelines, you still have the option to retrain some of the prerequisites or let the DM hand wave requirements as needed.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I'm not saying or even implying that it is dishonest, just interesting. Because the argument seems to be that the way to make 3e more interesting for melee combatants is to shift those classes closer to what 4e does. At that point some of the complaints about the limitations 4e imposes on encounter powers seem a little weird.

I think the focus is more on the "daily" martial powers. Encounter powers are still relatively easy to grog, but you can "explain" dailies only using either the narrative approach or saying that martial is still magic. (I am fine with both... ) You have to leave some of your normal preferences or preconceptions.

 

[D'karr]

I think the focus is more on the "daily" martial powers. Encounter powers are still relatively easy to grog, but you can "explain" dailies only using either the narrative approach or saying that martial is still magic. (I am fine with both... ) You have to leave some of your normal preferences or preconceptions.

Well I have seen complaints about Dailies but the ones that most resemble the Bo9s are the encounter powers. I don't recall any of the Bo9S powers being dailies, though I might be wrong.

In 4e, I've seen a lot of complaints about the reset time for encounter powers. "So, why can't I use that again in the same encounter?" The answer of course is for game balance purposes but that can be unsatisfying if you're not understanding, or agreeing with, the 4e design concepts.

One interesting thing in Bo9S that I might try for 4e is to allow a character to use a full round action to "meditate" and get back one encounter power. Similar to how a SwordSage gets encounter powers back during an encounter.

I'm still toying with the idea. I'm thinking about limiting it to once per encounter similar to how Action Points work. I might even just add that as an additional use for action points. Spend an Action Point and recover one Encounter power. Since the use of Action Points is already self limiting (once per encounter) then it might work well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well I have seen complaints about Dailies but the ones that most resemble the Bo9s are the encounter powers. I don't recall any of the Bo9S powers being dailies, though I might be wrong.

In 4e, I've seen a lot of complaints about the reset time for encounter powers. "So, why can't I use that again in the same encounter?" The answer of course is for game balance purposes but that can be unsatisfying if you're not understanding, or agreeing with, the 4e design concepts.

What I meant to say: I think that the encounter powers cause less headache then the daily powers, and so even if you don't like the 4E system, Bo9S might still work.

One interesting thing in Bo9S that I might try for 4e is to allow a character to use a full round action to "meditate" and get back one encounter power. Similar to how a SwordSage gets encounter powers back during an encounter.

I'm still toying with the idea. I'm thinking about limiting it to once per encounter similar to how Action Points work. I might even just add that as an additional use for action points. Spend an Action Point and recover one Encounter power. Since the use of Action Points is already self limiting (once per encounter) then it might work well.

Action Points for this use is a good idea, but notice that some paragon classes already allow this. And you don't really get that many action points, either.

How about this approach:
ou regain one (randomly determined?) encounter power if you are bloodied the first time, and if you are dropped to 0 hit points the first time. Or is this to much like a "fail-safe" mechanism and mostly a reward for "bad play"?

 

[Fenes]

One thing I don't like with 4E is that instead of ramping the martial powers up to the spell power, like Bo9S did, they toned the spells down to melee level. Even the dailies do not really look or feel impressive to me, not compared to spells of 3E, and powers from Bo9S.

 

[D'karr]

What I meant to say: I think that the encounter powers cause less headache then the daily powers, and so even if you don't like the 4E system, Bo9S might still work.

I see. Yeah, encounter powers are more palatable than dailies for that.

Action Points for this use is a good idea, but notice that some paragon classes already allow this. And you don't really get that many action points, either.

Yes, some paragon paths have additional mechanics that allow that but if you don't have access to the specific paragon path you're hosed. So I'm thinking that providing a mechanic that any class can use is helpful and if you happen to have that paragon class you also have the benefit it provides in addition to what all the other classes can do.

I think that Action points work well because they are part of the "economy of actions" currency. To get an encounter power back you are "paying" a cost. My initial thought was to use a full round action but those don't "exist" in the core so I did not want to add more complexity.

How about this approach:
You regain one (randomly determined?) encounter power if you are bloodied the first time, and if you are dropped to 0 hit points the first time. Or is this to much like a "fail-safe" mechanism and mostly a reward for "bad play"?

I think that this provides too much of a "safety net." What if you play tactically "smart" and avoid getting hit? Should you be penalized because you were not bloodied or dropped to negatives?

By making it a standard cost of one action point you make sure that it only happens once per encounter and the player has the option to take it or to use the action point for additional actions as normal.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One thing I don't like with 4E is that instead of ramping the martial powers up to the spell power, like Bo9S did, they toned the spells down to melee level. Even the dailies do not really look or feel impressive to me, not compared to spells of 3E, and powers from Bo9S.

You dirty old powergamer!

I think there are a few disadvantages to the "more power" approach.
One problem: You can give martial/non-spellcasting characters tons of combat power, but do you also want to give them the powerful utility power of mage? What's the martial equivalent to Teleport, Raise Dead, Scry?

Another:
The nd6 points of damage per level and the "Save or Die" effects of "traditional" spells just makes hit points irrelevant, since they scale at the same rate. You could go with a "wound point" system. Everyone can take Constitution Score (+class bonus) boxes of damage, and a fireball deals 1d6+INT boxes of damage in a 20 ft burst, while a longsword deals 1d8+STR damage to a single creature.
Sure, you lose out the relative power difference between 1st level and 10th level in hit points, but you could still keep the to-hit and defenses changing with level, so the difference will still be very strong. The system might get swingier against lower level opponents then using traditional HD (two lucky rolls can kill a high level PC), but the real problem is that the system is always swingy against equal level opponents. (Two average rolls can kill an equal level PC)

If you don't do this, you will begin comparing 1d8+STR longswords (or magic missile) at-wills with 10d6 fireball dailies (or "Brutal Strike" fighter daily). And you will notice that the fireballs and brutal strikes will over-shadow the rest, and they are still too precious to not recover at first opportunity.

Just having to chose between 1d8+INT vs 2d8+INT vs 3d8+INT powers makes dailies (and encounters) less critical. They are important, but you don't want to use them every time.