11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[Old Gumphrey]

Regarding the feats issue, I don't really see it as a problem. Yeah, you have to do some planning if you really want specific feats at specific times, but it simply doesn't matter as much anymore. Feats just aren't that powerful.

 

[LostSoul]

More seriously: I prefer "swingy" combat because uncertainty is fun. I'd rather play in a situation in which one die roll can send plans nd tactics down the flusher, for the good guys or the bad guys. Sometimes, the villain goes down like a punk. Sometimes,the PCs have to retreat and regroup. It is preferable by far, IMO, than knowing that, all thing being equal, I need to set aside two hours of game time for the "boss fight".

I think that uncertainty is great. I think it's great because it makes each decision point important. You don't know what effect the choice you make will have, and that's fun.

However, uncertainty that lowers the number of choices you can make - "Oh crap, I rolled a 1, I'm dead" - is not very cool. "Oh crap, the bodak hit me, if he has line of sight on me next time he goes I'm dead" changes the situation and opens up a whole other line of choices.

 

[Shroomy]

Regarding the feats issue, I don't really see it as a problem. Yeah, you have to do some planning if you really want specific feats at specific times, but it simply doesn't matter as much anymore. Feats just aren't that powerful.

I don't even think it is a measure of power, its that most feats are not dependent on having another feat, instead being dependent on ability score, race, and class. And as far as I can remember, no PPs are dependent (so far, and I don't see this changing) on having a certain feat.

 

[Hussar]

Right, but the number of die rolls performed by the DM and the players (total) is pretty much the same. Sometimes there's an equal number of enemies. Sometimes there's one nemy with a number of attacks. But the probability of one of the players critting or whatever and the DM doing it with one of the enemies is pretty much equal (barring "builds" made for crits, etc..).



This is true, but I think it's because the intent, traditionally, is to have more, weaker foes vs the party rather than a singular powerful foe. If every time the party enters a room there's a CR=party level monter in 3E, chances are you are going to lose a PC sooner rather than later, and once one is gone, the spiral starts.

That's certain not true in 3e. It might be true before. 3e assumes very small numbers of opponents, 5 at the absolute most, because beyond that, the opponents simply cannot hurt the PC's. Their attack rolls are too low and their saving throw DC's are too low to have much effect.

I find that 2-3 baddies tends to work best. But, even then, if you start going EL+, you run into the same problems - monsters can simply kill PC's with straight up damage in 1-2 rounds. Particularly if you gang up on one PC - like a fighter meatshield trying to protect the wizard.

This wasn't an issue in earlier editions because monsters did so little damage with their attacks.

 

[Reynard]

However, uncertainty that lowers the number of choices you can make - "Oh crap, I rolled a 1, I'm dead" - is not very cool. "Oh crap, the bodak hit me, if he has line of sight on me next time he goes I'm dead" changes the situation and opens up a whole other line of choices.

It doesn't lower the number of choices, though: it' a different decision point. "Oh, crap, a bodak! If I fail a save when that thing gazes me, I'm dead!" Now the decision point is before or at the beginning of the encounter. Run? (Yes, fleeing is a viable option -- a fact that seems to get forgotten a lot.) Fight blind or eyes averted and take the penalty? Have the cleric burn their best healing spell to do as much damage to the thing as possible? It's the same thing with the great sword wielding fire giant, who can smear almost any character with a successful crit. How do you engage such an enemy while minimizing the chance that it'll be able to do so?

I honestly think part of the issue is a difference in general playstyle attitude. It seems to me that it's a relatively recent development that "schtick building" has become prominent among players and there's less room for players to adapt their play behavior to changing circumstances, plus an attitude that not being able to use their schtick is considered not fun. Perhaps it is due to the ability (in 3E) or the near-requirement (in 4E) to hyper-focus a character so they are good at one thing in particular and very poor at other things. Sure, your 1E and 2E fighter could specialize, but by and large tht specialization gave limited benefits. The long sword pecialized fighter still carried a mace (for skeletons), a bow or crossbow (for stuff he didn't want to get near) and a ten foot pole (to push rust monsters away with). There was an uncertainty in what was coming next, what kind of threat it would be and where it sat relative to the power/experience level of the characters. Latter 3.5 (I blame Mearls, mostly) fanned the flames of this attutude by make "official" statements about what was fun and what wasn't. And it was a short leap from "fun" to "fair".

 

[Reynard]

That's certain not true in 3e. It might be true before. 3e assumes very small numbers of opponents, 5 at the absolute most, because beyond that, the opponents simply cannot hurt the PC's. Their attack rolls are too low and their saving throw DC's are too low to have much effect.

I think that's entirely dependent upon the level range we're talking about. A gang of 8 orcs is EL 5 (if I am remembering my EL math correctly). At that point, the orcs are swing with a +5, including flanking, against AC's that are not appreciably better than 1st level characters except for the tank fighters that pumped all their treasure into a suit of full plate (maybe everyoen else has a +1 or +2 increase from various gear and such). Are they are horrifying deadly threat? No. But they do represent a big enough threat that PCs have to expend some resources to ensure that no one gets seriously injured. that's okay. it isn't a boss fight, it is a "standard" fight. basic stats plus good tactics makes them a noticible threat. Now, as you start up the level ladder, things get a little wonkier, because PC defenses and capabilities grow exponentially as opposed to linearly.

I'll have to look up some specific examples and see if I can parcel out where the break is.

 

[LostSoul]

It doesn't lower the number of choices, though: it' a different decision point. "Oh, crap, a bodak! If I fail a save when that thing gazes me, I'm dead!"

What I'm saying is that the mechanics should increase the number of choices after we go to them. Using the bodak's death gaze doesn't create more decision points; either you're dead after your save, or you continue to do whatever you were doing prior to its gaze attack (i.e. trying to kill it/shut it down before it takes its turn).

4e's death gaze changes the situation after it hits you, opening up a whole new tree of decisions to be made that did not exist before.

A 4e example of mechanics limiting choices is the purple worm's swallow ability (under certain readings). If you're hit, the actions you can take - and the choices you can make - narrow down pretty fast.

 

[D'karr]

I think that's entirely dependent upon the level range we're talking about.

Exactly. In 3e the play experience remains fun without getting crazy for a short interval of levels. IME, from about level 4 to about level 12.

Now, as you start up the level ladder, things get a little wonkier, because PC defenses and capabilities grow exponentially as opposed to linearly.

You got it. 3e has a progression of power that breaks down at higher level, and a ramp up period that keeps the characters barely survivable.

So 4e flattened this curve so that power growth is now more linear. It also keeps the ramp up much more survivable and the higher level play still fun and relevant.

I much prefer that growth curve to the one in 3e.

 

[T-Bone JiuJitsu]

The Minion rules initially upset me. Now that I've used them in play, I think they are probably a good idea, and not as absurd as I originally thought.

I will probably continue to use them as is, but one solution came to mind. I may use this in the future if the need arises...

Elite Minions. If they are damaged they are considered Bloodied. If they are damaged a second time, Dead. The only thing to work out is what if that first hit is "high damage"? Say the fighter hits for like 19 hp damage in one blow, and I would expect that would outright kill this type of creature. DM judgement would have to be called in in that case. I'd say a critical hit would insta-kill an "elite minion".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Right, but the number of die rolls performed by the DM and the players (total) is pretty much the same. Sometimes there's an equal number of enemies. Sometimes there's one nemy with a number of attacks. But the probability of one of the players critting or whatever and the DM doing it with one of the enemies is pretty much equal (barring "builds" made for crits, etc..)

But a key difference is always the emotional investment. Most players are invested in their characters, and very often, even the DM cares about the individual PCs (because he might have plot-hooks for them to draw them into the next adventure, or just because he enjoys seeing them in action) and the party as a whole.
The emotional investment in most NPCs and monsters is pretty low. They are exchangeable, and aside from maybe a few recurring NPCs (allies, nemesis, family members of the PCs), you care little about them. And if the few ones that you care about are killed by some lucky roll, the scene usually is anti-climatic.
Like those "Scry-Buff-Teleport" encounters, or at least the "buff up before facing the BBEG" - the party is optimizing all its defenses, casting every buff spell at its disposal, uses potions, and gets to the BBEG (either by Teleport or just traveling the remaining distance) - and the first action of the PCs just kills him. Like a succesful Save or Die attack. All the suspense was build up in planning the encounter, but the pay-off is a 1-round fight with the BBEG being totally ineffective?

---

What I noticed about the above: The buffing part of 3E got easily out-of-hand and often created statistical nightmares - but it definitely helped building up suspense. The party looks at everything they know about the foe they are about to attack, and tries to optimize its spell selection, buff distribution and work out the battle tactic (usually which short-term buffs to cast, when to cast certain attack spells, which foes to engage first, and so on).
Maybe that will be something I'll miss in 4E. The entire buff selection part is gone. (But the up-side is - the buff recalculations are gone, too. And those really bogged down this type of encounters.)